The Ozette Prairies of Olympic National Park - Natural Resources ...

The Ozette Prairies of Olympic National Park: Their
Former Indigenous Uses and Management
Final Report to Olympic National Park
Port Angeles, Washington
Winter 2009
M. Kat Anderson, Ph.D.
National Plant Data Center,
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Department of Plant Sciences 1035 Wickson Hall
One Shields Ave.
University of California
Davis, California 95616
mkanderson@ucdavis.edu

Title Page Photo Caption
Bog Cranberry
(Vaccinium oxycoccos)
Berries for food
Makah women picking bog cranberries, circa 1936 (location unknown)
Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration, Sandpoint.
Seattle, Washington
photographer unknown

Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................. iv
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................... v
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................1
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................4
Ecological Features of the Ozette Prairies ...............................................................................................................5
Role of the Ozette Prairies in the Life of the Makah ............................................................................................10
Indian Management of the Ozette Prairies with Fire ..........................................................................................39
Cultural Purposes for Burning ................................................................................................................................47
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................56
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................60
Management Options for the Ozette Prairies .......................................................................................................61
References ...................................................................................................................................................................64
Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................................................73
Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................................................................77
Appendix 3 .................................................................................................................................................................78
Appendix 4 .................................................................................................................................................................80
Appendix 5 .................................................................................................................................................................82
Appendix 6 .................................................................................................................................................................85
i

List of Figures
Figure 1. View of Ahlstrom’s Prairie from the boardwalk .....................................................................................2
Figure 2. Map of Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s Prairies .................................................................................................3
Figure 3. Conifer encroachment onto Ahlstrom’s Prairie .......................................................................................4
Figure 4. Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) shrub on Ahlstrom’s Prairie .............................................................6
Figure 5. Dead bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) thatch ......................................................................................6
Figure 6. The swamp gentian (Gentiana douglasiana) ..............................................................................................9
Figure 7. Great burnet (Sanguisorba officinalis) .........................................................................................................9
Figure 8. Map of the Ozette Village site complex ..................................................................................................11
Figure 9. Ozette Indian Village .................................................................................................................................12
Figure 10. Lars Ahlstrom ...........................................................................................................................................13
Figure 11. Pete Roose .................................................................................................................................................14
Figure 12. Pete Roose’s homestead ..........................................................................................................................14
Figure 13. Ahlstrom’s homestead ............................................................................................................................15
Figure 14. Makah seasonal round ............................................................................................................................17
Figure 15. Swan map of Wyaatch and Ts’oo-yuhs Villages adjacent to prairies ...............................................21
Figure 16. T.T. Waterman map with trail placename ............................................................................................22
Figure 17. Map of the prairies accessed by the Ozette Village ............................................................................23
Figure 18. Bud and Vera Klock .................................................................................................................................24
Figure 19. Salal (Gaultheria shallon) berries on Roose’s Prairie ............................................................................25
Figure 20. Elizabeth Barlow using salal berry sauce as a topping on vanilla ice cream ..................................25
Figure 21. Edie Hottowe, Makah, picking evergreen huckleberries ...................................................................26
Figure 22. Leah Parker at her home on the Makah Reservation .........................................................................31
Figure 23. Gary Ray, Makah, picking bog cranberries ..........................................................................................32
Figure 24. Cathy Chamblin-Peterson, Makah ........................................................................................................32
Figure 25. Indian tea (Ledum groenlandicum) on Ahlstrom’s Prairie ...................................................................33
Figure 26. Pat Boachup, Makah, picking Indian tea on Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie .......................................................34
Figure 27. Tommy Peterson, Makah, picking Indian tea on Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie ...............................................34
Figure 28. William (Makah) and Klara (Nu-chah-nulth) Tyler ............................................................................35
Figure 29. Edie Hottowe, Makah, at a bracken fern root traditional gathering site .........................................36
Figure 30. Cathy and Ed Wilbur ..............................................................................................................................36
Figure 31. The flower spike of slough sedge (Carex obnupta) in Ahlstrom’s Prairie .........................................37
Figure 32. Gary Ray, Makah .....................................................................................................................................38
Figure 33. Hans Boe slash-burning at Royal ..........................................................................................................41
Figure 34. 1895 Plat Map highlighting West Prairie and M.J. Boyle’s residence ..............................................43
ii

Figure 35. 1895 Plat Map highlighting West Prairie and Manny’s Prairie .........................................................44
Figure 36. 1892-1897 Plat Map highlighting Manny’s Prairie and Sand Point Prairie .....................................45
Figure 37. Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) on Roose’s Prairie .......................................................................46
Figure 38. James Wesseler .........................................................................................................................................47
Figure 39. The home of Judge William Morton Bowlby .......................................................................................48
Figure 40. Bud Klock..................................................................................................................................................48
Figure 41. Kate McCarty ...........................................................................................................................................50
Figure 42. Sadie Johnson, Makah with daughter Yvonne Wilke and grandson Corbett .................................51
Figure 43. John H. Ides, Makah, and his wife Junette ...........................................................................................52
Figure 44. Emil Person with his grandaughter ......................................................................................................54
iii

List of Tables
Table 1. Timeline for Major Events Affecting the Ozette Prairies .......................................................................16
Table 2. The Makah Seasonal Round, as Reflected in Names of the Lunar Months ........................................19
Table 3. Wetlands in Ozette Traditional Territory ..................................................................................................20
Table 4. Plants Gathered on the Ozette Prairies .....................................................................................................27
Table 5. Useful Plants likely Gathered on Manny’s, Ozette, and West Prairies ................................................28
Table 6. 1895 General Land Office Survey of the Ozette Prairies ........................................................................42
iv

Acknowledgments
The conception for this study grew out of a National Park Service conference: Cultural Resources
2000: Managing for the Future in December 2000 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I participated in a panel, “Challenges
of and Opportunities for Park-Based Ethnobotanical Research.” I met Jacilee Wray for the first time
at this meeting, and the seeds for this project were planted. She was a guiding force and visionary behind
this study, understanding the significance of ethnobiology in bridging park research in the biological and
social sciences—for the profound fact that certain biologically diverse landscapes are deeply intertwined
with ancient human interactions. Such is the case for many of the prairies and wetlands on the Olympic
Peninsula. Thus, these places can teach us about possibilities for envisioning new ways of relating to the
land. Jacilee tirelessly assisted me in every way to complete this project, and I am deeply indebted to her.
Many other people contributed to this report. Thanks to Frederick York who encouraged me to
to take on this study, introducing me to key contacts, and arranging for me to speak to staff at various national
parks about my work in California. Thank you to Larry Nickey for bringing me up to speed on the
fire history of the westside Olympic Peninsula. I am grateful to David Egan for launching a special issue
of the journal Ecological Restoration in the winter of 2003, which explored the theme Native American Land
Management Practices in National Parks.
Foremost, thank you to all of the Native Americans and non-Indians who contributed to this
study. At my first Olympic Peninsula Cultural Advisory Committee (OPICAC) meeting, native people
from various parts of the Olympic Peninsula warmly embraced the idea for this study. Executive Director,
Janine Bowechop (Makah), and her staff at the Makah Cultural and Research Center made many
resources available to me and facilitated interviews with Makah elders. Deep gratitude is expressed to
the people I interviewed: Pat Boachup (Makah), Bob Bowlby (Jamestown S’Klallam), Cathy Chamblin-
Peterson (Makah), Cindy Claplanhoo (Makah), Ed Claplanhoo (Makah), Greg Colfax (Makah), Edie Hottowe
(Makah), John H. Ides (Makah), Sadie Johnson (Makah), Bud Klock, Vera Klock, Kate McCarty, Leah
Parker (Makah/Lummi), Emil Person, Melissa Peterson (Makah), Gary Ray (Makah), Larry Sears, William
Tyler (Makah), James Wesseler, Ed Wilbur, and Yvonne Wilke (Makah).
I am grateful to many other people who contributed to my knowledge of the uses and manage-
ment of prairies and wetlands in other parts of the Olympic Peninsula (outside of Olympic National Park)
including Gladys Allen, Missy Barlow, Bea Charles (Klallam), Bob and Mary Huelsdonk, Muriel Huggins,
Justine James (Quinault), Mary Leitka (Hoh), Ed Maupin, Harvest Moon (Quinault), Chris Morganroth III
(Quileute), Lela Mae Morganroth (Quileute), Gary Peterson, Oscar Peterson, Marie Riebe (Hoh), Vi Riebe
(Hoh), Elsa Schmidt (Aha Blip), Leta Shale (Quileute), Daisy Sinema, Adeline Smith (Klallam), and Myra
v

Vanderhoof. Special thanks to Chris Morganroth III, Justine James, and the rest of the OPICAC Committee
Members for our many discussions and field trips to various prairies and wetlands.
Gratitude is expressed to Frederica Bowcutt for her plant identification skills and for sharing her
Ozette Prairie botanical field notes with me. Fred Sharpe gave me a tour of the prairies and wetlands all
over the Olympic Peninsula, provided a wealth of natural history knowledge, and gave me permission
to use his photographs. Stan Graham devoted many years to mapping and cataloguing the prairies of the
Olympic Peninsula and his report, conversations, and field trips were invaluable.
Eric Engles provided outstanding editing. Steve Oerding assisted me in inserting the photos and
doing all of the excellent line drawings and maps and assisted with the layout of the report. Steve Dana
and Dave Rowney generated the tables.
Peer-reviewers of part or all of the report included James Agee, Clayton Antieau, Dwight Barry,
Frederica Bowcutt, Sarah Bridges, Marty Chaney, Shelly Davis-King, David Egan, Stan Graham, Richard
Hebda, David Imper, Karen James, Linda Kunze, Dana Lepofsky, Brian Magnusson, Larry Nickey,
Lisa Palazzi, David Peter, Joseph Randolph, Jerry Rouse, John Sawyer, Fred Sharpe, Linda Storm, Nancy
Turner, Cathy Whitlock, Jacilee Wray, and Frederick York. Special thanks to Karen James for sharing her
vast library with me, to Nancy Turner for answering many ethnobotanical questions, and to David Imper,
David Peter, and John Sawyer for their insights, field experience, thought-provoking comments, and
many discussions about prairies and wetlands.
The staff of the Washington Department of Natural Resources, especially Joe Arnett, John Fleck-
enstein, John Gamon, and Michael Polenz, answered my questions. Curators, archivists, and librarians
were very helpful in tracking down relevant photographs, articles, surveys, reports, and books including
Margaret Hutchison (Royal B.C. Museum), Victoria, Jerrice Barrios and Nina Cummings (Chicago Field
Museum of Natural History), Shirley Dallas (Washington State Library, Olympia), Karen Dereszynski,
Carol Lo and John LaMont (Seattle Public Library), Kathy Duncan (Jamestown S’Klallam) (Tribal Office
Library), Sherrill Fouts (Forks Timber Museum), Forks Library, Jody Gripp (Tacoma Public Library), Gay
Hunter (Olympic National Park), Jefferson County Historical Society, Lupita Lopez (Washington State
Archives, Olympia), Nathan Matthews (BLM National Resource Library, Portland), Patty McNamee and
staff (National Archives and Records Administration), Majorie Palmer (Port Angeles Library), Keely
Parker and Theresa Parker (Makah Cultural and Research Center), Carol Turcotte (Washington Department
of Fish and Game), University of California, Berkeley Bancroft Library, University of California,
Davis Special Collections, University of Washington Library, Katherine Vollenweider (Museum and Arts
Center Collection, Sequim, WA). Special thanks to Gay Hunter and Patty McNamee for tracking down
vi

many obscure references.
Many other people contributed to the report in various ways and I am grateful. They include
Steve Acker, Andy Bach, Don Baker, Kahled Bloom, Ed Bowen, June Bowlby, Greg Burtchard, Dave
Conca, Ellen Dean, Susan Dolan, Frank Easter, Gerald Elfendahl, Daniel Gavin, Steven Gill, Paul Gleeson,
Jerry Gorsline, Susan Harrison, Gregory Holm, Gus Hughbanks, Junette Ides, Jeremiah Johnson, Leslie
Johnson, Loretta Klock, Frank Lake, Ken Lertzman, Cheryl Mack, Jeff Mauger, Maria Pascua, Evelyn
Person, Scott Peterson, Jay Powell, Dennis Robinson, David Ruppert, Cheryl Schultz, David Smith, Susan
Southard, Jennifer Thomas, Klara Tyler (Nu-chah-nulth), Richard Ward, Cathy Wilbur, and Bob Zybach.
vii

Introduction
The Ozette Prairies—openings of bog, fen, and grassland in a forest of Sitka spruce, western hem-
lock, and western redcedar—lie two kilometers east of the Pacific Ocean, well within hearing distance
of barking sea lions on the rocky islands offshore. One can walk from these wetlands to the coast on the
Cape Alava Trail, which cuts through the openings and the surrounding forest along the route of an old
Indian trail (Waterman 1920). Wandering off the trail into the forest, the travel becomes slow and cumbersome;
one has to straddle downed logs and bushwhack through shrubbery and young trees.
The wetlands, on the other hand, are easily and comfortably traversed. They are inviting landing
sites for ducks and geese, habitat for ground-nesting birds, and are attractive to Roosevelt elk, blacktailed
deer, and black bears. Before the coming of white settlers, they were also attractive to the Ozette
Indians, who hunted and collected food and useful plants there for perhaps 2,000 years (Blinman 1980;
Wessen 1984). The Ozette people would come to the Ozette Prairies from their village at Cape Alava on
the Pacific Ocean, seeking young horsetail sprouts to eat in spring, the leaves of a particular sedge to
weave into their baskets in summer, and bog cranberries, Indian tea leaves, and fern rhizomes in autumn.
They built shelters in the wetlands and dried and smoked their food there (Bertelson 1948; Gunther 1871-
1981). Before 1910, two Swedish immigrants—Peter Roose and Lars Ahlstrom—filed 160 acre claims and
moved onto these open areas, built structures, raised sheep and cattle, and planted vegetable gardens
(see Figures 1 and 2). When Ahlstrom first moved to the area in 1902, he lived in an Ozette Indian hut
and interacted with the Ozette as described by Bertelson (1948): “He got along fine with the Ozettes, and
bought salvaged drift-boards and planks from them with which to build. And after he got settled and had
acquired four cows, he traded butter and garden truck with the Indians for fish and game.”
Today, butterfly and plant experts view the Ozette Prairies as a wilderness refuge—a place shel-
tering unique plant and animal life. They are a biological focus area of the National Park Service because
they represent excellence in beauty and biological diversity and harbor an array of rare and endangered
plant and animal species (http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.html; Pyle 2002). In recognition
of their cultural and ecological value, the wetlands have received official protection; their structures
are on the National Register of Historic Places and the land is designated as wilderness or potential
wilderness (Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988; Ruth Scott pers. comm. 2007).
But formal designation alone is not enough to save the biotic diversity of these areas, as they are
shrinking. Young western hemlock and redcedar trees, along with some Sitka spruce and Pacific yew, are
advancing into the open habitats (see Figure 3). In the early 1940s, Alice Kalappa, Makah, complained to
1

Figure 1. View of Ahlstrom’s Prairie from the boardwalk. #215. Photograph by Fred Sharpe, 2007.
anthropologist Elizabeth Colson in an interview that “Now there are lots of trees on the [Ozette] marsh
because nobody takes care of it anymore.” In 1981, Stephen Underwood, Ozette Subdistrict Ranger, wrote
Olympic National Park visitors to solicit early photographs of the Ahlstrom’s Prairie. He received slides
and prints of Ahlstrom’s Prairie from the early 1960s. He wrote the visitors thank you notes saying in one
letter that “It’s impressive how much growth has occurred out on the prairie [between the early 1960s and
1981]” (Underwood 1981). Wetlands ecologist Linda Kunze documented tree encroachment on the Ozette
Prairies in her unpublished botanical field notes in 1989 (see Appendix 1). Ed Tisch (2002:6) explained the
tree encroachment onto Ahlstrom’s Prairie in an article in the Voice of the Wild Olympics magazine:
The highest, best-drained sites favor tree establishment. Most of these elevated areas
currently support a hemlock\salal-evergreen huckleberry community type in which
bracken, deer ferns, bunchberries, twinflowers, and beaked mosses are common, and
the dominant shrubs grow to heights of three to ten feet. These expanding ‘forests’ are
slowly repossessing.
In a faculty-reviewed geography master’s thesis using aerial photos, Kate Ramsden (2004) esti-
mated that Roose’s Prairie decreased in size by 32.7 percent between 1964 and 2000 and that Ahlstrom’s
Prairie decreased in size by 53.5 percent during the same 36-year interval. Emil Person, a long-time
resident of the western Peninsula who has watched the trees encroach over the years, estimates an even
2

Figure 2. Map of Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s Prairies (Also known as the Ozette Prairies).
larger loss of open ground:
Well, the prairies have grown over so much. Seventy-five percent [of those prairies]
[are] all filled in with trees. Pete Roose’s place is practically all grown up [in trees].
And Ahlstrom’s, when you used to first hit that prairie the whole thing was practically
all just about bare except maybe for a little tree here and there. Now it’s pretty near
grown up so that you can hardly see anything out there. Ahlstrom’s, that area there
would probably be a hundred and fifty acres. Pete’s place, the area there was probably
eighty or maybe a hundred acres. You see Pete had sheep and that kept the brush down
on his place. And the big prairie there at Ahlstrom’s was kept down because the sheep
would eat it down as well (Emil Person pers. comm. 2006).
Age data determined by tree core dating revealed that trees began encroaching on Roose’s Prai-
rie 50 to 100 years ago and on Ahlstrom’s Prairie less than 50 years ago. The establishment dates of the
encroaching trees coincide with the end of major disturbance on these wetlands—homesteader influence
by way of sheep grazing and burning (Ramsden 2004). This use of the land came to an end when the land
became part of Olympic National Park. Tree encroachment has progressed significantly on both areas
since that time. Modeling predictions based on air photo analysis suggest that tree encroachment will
continue at a rapid rate, covering most of the area within 100 years, at which point the wetlands will have
likely become coniferous forest and woodland swamp (Ramsden 2004).
3

Until recently, we were limited by a relative lack of knowledge of former native use and manage-
ment of the Ozette Prairies and how these actions may have influenced the shaping and maintenance of
these openings. This report is intended to remedy this situation by collecting together for the first time
much of the available cultural evidence—through a review of the historical literature and ethnographic
interviews.
Methods
This report begins by outlining the setting: the unique and valuable natural features and biodi-
versity of the Ozette Prairies. Scientific names are from the USDA Plants Database (http://plants.usda.
gov) developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service National Plant Data Center. It then
turns to the indigenous people of the area, describing what is known about how they used the wetlands
and then what has been pieced together about how they managed the wetlands with fire. This body of
data comes from two lines of evidence (1) oral interviews and (2) the written historical record.
Figure 3. Conifer encroachment onto Ahlstrom’s Prairie. #256. Photograph by Fred Sharpe, 2007
4

Oral Interviews
Oral interviews with individuals from various tribes and non-Indians with a long-term history in
the area are considered a legitimate, scholarly method of information gathering in the fields of anthropology,
ethnobiology, environmental history, and historical ecology and are used to reconstruct Native American
uses of the flora and land management practices (Anderson 2005; Boyd 1999a; Deur and Turner 2005;
Egan and Howell 2001; Goble and Hirt 1999).
There are Makah who are the present-day carriers of an oral tradition, chronicling the ancient
practices and lifeways of the people. Native people still gather native plants and prepare traditional foods,
and speak their native language. Between 2002 and 2007, thirty oral interviews were conducted with
twenty-one individuals concerning the history of the Ozette Prairies. Seventeen interviews were conducted
with thirteen Makah; two interviews were conducted with a Jamestown S’Klallam; eleven interviews were
conducted with seven non-Indians with a knowledge of the long-term history of the area. Makah consultants
were transmitting information that they received directly from parents or grandparents who had
witnessed or used practices of which they spoke. Thus, this information is still quite fresh in the collective
memory of the Makah and likely to be accurate.
The Written Historical Record
Supplementing the information from these interviews is a considerable body of archival evidence
from the historic and ethnographic record, including nineteenth-century maps, newspaper articles, museum
records and collections, and field notes from explorers, surveyors, botanists, and anthropologists
which were studied along with General Land Office survey maps and accompanying notes for information
on cultural uses and burning of the wetlands in the traditional territory of the Makah.
Ecological Features of the Ozette Prairies
The Ozette Prairies are a mosaic of wetlands and relatively drier treeless environments: bogs, fens,
and grassland areas. Such open areas are rare in the forest that covers most of Olympic National Park and
constitute some of the only habitats in which animals and plants not adapted to the shade of trees can survive.
Since this open habitat is not extensive, some of these species are threatened or sensitive. In addition
to being a refuge for these species, the wetlands have extremely high biodiversity because they encompass
such a wide variety of ecological conditions, including bogs, fens, grasslands, and ecotones (transition
5

zones between forest and prairie). Because of these factors, the wetlands are a unique ecosystem, impor-
tant not only for the species that require open habitats but also for the biota of the Olympic National Park
as a whole.
An overview of the two main wetlands of the Ozette—Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s—serves to illus-
trate the ecological diversity of the Ozette Prairies.
6
Ahlstrom’s Prairie receives both rainfall
and overland water flows. Braided rills flow
north to south through central portions of
the peatland, draining excess water from
the wetland into an outflow stream south
of the wetland (Gutchewsky 2004). In the
ecotone around the wetland’s margin grow
some of the forest shrubs that have edible
berries: salal (Gaultheria shallon), evergreen
Figure 4. Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) shrub in the shade of western
huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), and red
hemlock trees on the western edge of Ahlstrom’s Prairie. Photograph by Kat
Anderson, 2007.
huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium) (Kate
McCarty pers. comm. 2007, Bach and Conca
2004). Also in the ecotone, particularly on the west side of the wetland, grow large, huckleberry bushes
with no berries under the dense canopy of young western hemlock trees (see Figure 4). On the northeast
perimeter of Ahlstrom’s Prairie there is a small patch of giant horsetail (Equisetum telmateia) and skunk
cabbage (Lysichitum americanus) in the ecotone. Under the advancing conifers, there is a build-up of old,
dead bracken thatch. (see Figure 5). Just out from the ecotone in the higher and drier perimeter of the
wetland a ring of bracken fern (Pteridium
aquilinum) grows in very dense patches,
particularly on the west side (Bowcutt
2007). Other associates along this perimeter
include Indian tea (also known as
Labrador tea) (Ledum groenlandicum), bog
laurel (Kalmia polifolia), Menzie’s spiraea
or hardhack (Spiraea douglasii var. menziesii)
(Buckingham 1976-1977), and salal.
(Note: Lenz and Cereghino (2002) found
no rare species in areas dominated by salal
and bracken fern, or in dense woody Figure 5. Dead bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) thatch in the same location as
Figure 4. Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007.

og communities dominated by Indian tea and bog laurel.
The next zone inward from the edge is dominated by slough sedge (Carex obnupta) and Indian tea.
Associates in this zone include salal, deer fern (Blechnum spicant), bog laurel, and bracken fern (Bowcutt
2007). Deer and elk trails run through this part of the wetland, and along these paths one finds low-growing
plants such as swamp gentian (Gentiana douglasiana), bog cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos), and bog St.
John’s-wort (Hypericum anagalloides).
The wetter lower areas in the center of Ahlstrom’s Prairie are the most species-rich. This is in the
heart of the fen. The vegetation is dominated by sedges, such as as Carex livida, C. aquatilis, and C. cusickii,
which are mixed with dense patches of rushes (Juncus effusus var. gracilis and Juncus balticus) (Bowcutt
2007; Buckingham 1976-1977; Gutchewsky 2004). These plants are half the height of the Indian tea and
slough sedge that dominate areas of the fen along the edges and on the northern end. Thus, the shorter
plants like bog cranberry, great burnet (Sanguisorba officinalis), king gentian (Gentiana sceptrum), swamp
gentian, bog orchid (Platanthera dilatata var. dilatata), sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), northern starflower
(Trientalis borealis ssp. latifolia), bog St. John’s-wort, and cottongrass (Eriophorum chamissonis) grow here
(Bowcutt 2007). The very center of the low point of the fen is dominated by a sedge with fine grass-like
leaves and a small inflorescence (1cm. long) along with an airy grass with a very open panicle of brownpurplish
flowers.
Botanist Nelsa Buckingham has documented the occurence of two other species that are cultur-
ally significant as food to the Makah: springbank clover (Trifolium wormskjoldii) and dwarf blueberry (Vac-
cinium caespitosum) north of the Cape Alava Trail in Ahlstrom’s Prairie (Buckingham 1976-1977).
Roose’s Prairie has no water source other than rainfall (Gutchewsky 2004). It is similar to Ahl-
strom’s Prairie in terms of vegetation structure, but its flora is somewhat different. Along an unmarked
trail that runs north from the main Cape Alava Trail to Roose’s homestead there are two large populations
of Vancouver ground-cone (Boschniakia hookeri) (Weissbach and Bivin 1997). The wetland that houses the
complex of structures forming Roose’s old homestead is approximately three acres. On the western side
of this wetland near Pete Roose’s house, the vegetation is dominated by salal and deer fern, interspersed
with evergreen huckleberry and small patches of Indian tea (Bowcutt 2007). The larger conifers advancing
in the wetland are approximately 25 to 30 years old (Weissbach and Bivin 1997). In the southern part
of this wetland, grasses and forbs are common, including poverty danthonia (Danthonia spicata), and
northern starflower (Weissbach and Bivin 1997). Non-native plants include the common hairy cat’s ear
(Hypochaeris radicata), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and foxglove (Digitalis
purpurea).
7

The drier east-facing slopes have crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), bunchberry (Cornus unalaschken-
sis), king gentian, twinflower (Linnaea borealis ssp. longiflora), running clubmoss (Lycopodium clavatum),
slough sedge, velvet grass, bracken fern, northern starflower, false lily of the valley (Maianthemum dilata-
tum), hairy cat’s ear, plantain (Plantago sp.), and a tall bunchgrass (Bowcutt 2007).
To the east of Roose’s homestead is a bog that closely resembles the species composition in Ahl-
strom’s Prairie, but there is more sphagnum moss here and it is more boggy than Ahlstrom’s Prairie. The
vegetation in the wettest center of the bog contains: few-flowered sedge (Carex pluriflora), white beakrush
(Rhynochospora alba), skunk cabbage, sundew, bog cranberry, great burnet, swamp gentian, king gentian,
bog laurel, Indian tea, cottongrass, bunchberry, northern starflower, and bog St. John’s-wort (Bowcutt
2007). Makah coppers sip nectar from the great burnet. Alaskan plantain (Plantago macrocarpa), a sensitive
plant, is also found here (Weissbach and Bivin 1997).
East of this bog and northeast of Roose’s homestead is a dry opening dominated by crowberry
and bracken fern. Great burnet, deer fern, western bog laurel, Indian tea, slough sedge, and the lowgrowing
bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) also occur here (Bowcutt 2007; Gutchewsky 2004:12).
Further east there is another boggy area even larger than the one closer to the homestead. There are many
sphagnum moss hummocks dominated by crowberry. Associates are Indian tea, western bog laurel,
bracken fern, sticky false asphodel (Tofieldia glutinosa), sundew, bog cranberry, and spiraea (Bowcutt 2007).
Surrounding both Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s Prairies are slopes (greater than two degrees) with
mineral soils. The dominant vegetation is made up of high, densely spaced shrubs, a few sedges and
grasses, many young trees 1-10 m tall, and a dense understory of herbs, ferns, lichens, and mosses
(http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~andybach/Ozette). Based on Andy Bach and Dave Conca’s soil analysis
(2001) and the existence of many burnt stumps and snags in this zone, one can conclude that the plants
are growing on former forestland that was at one time cleared by fire. Two of the most common shrubs
here are Indian tea and bog laurel. Salal is also abundant particularly near the wetland edge. Western
hemlock, Sitka spruce, and western redcedar saplings and young trees are common on the uplands (Bowcutt
2007; http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~andybach/Ozette).
The state-listed threatened, sensitive, or review group plant species growing in the Ozette
Prairies include Alaska plantain (Plantago macrocarpa), Vancouver ground-cone (Boschniakia hookeri),
swamp gentian (Gentiana douglasiana), northern microseris (Microseris borealis), goldthread (Coptis trifolia),
and two kinds of sedges: several-flowered sedge (Carex pluriflora), and long-styled sedge (Carex stylosa)
(http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantrnk.html; Buckingham 1993; Lenz and Cereghino
2002). (See Figure 6).
8

Figure 6. The swamp gentian (Gentiana douglasiana), a plant (with
sensitive status) used for nectar by the Makah copper. #313. Photograph
by Fred Sharpe, 2007.
9
The delicate and sensitive swamp
gentian, which naturalist Archibald Menzies
painted on his botanical trip to the Northwest
Coast of America with Captain George Vancouver
in spring of 1792, occurs in boggy areas of the
Ozette Prairies and its sweet nectar is sought out
by one of the sensitive animal species of the wetlands—the
rare Makah copper butterfly. Besides
the swamp gentian, the adult butterflies also
may gather nectar on great burnet (Sanguisorba),
forget-me-not (Myosotis), a native Hypericum, a
species of Galium, a small Epilobium, and a white
mint (R. Pyle and T. Pyle 2001). (See Figure 7).
The Makah copper is a narrow endemic found on the Ozette Prairies and the North Bay bogs in
Grays Harbor County. It is closely related to the Mariposa copper (Lycaena mariposa), but different enough
to be described as a separate taxon. It is distinguishable from other coppers by a diagnostic pattern of
light scales of the ventral hind wing organized into dramatic, almost silvery orbs between the veins (Pyle
2002:186). The larva feed on bog cranberry in the Ozette Prairies, but since only one egg has been found
on this plant, more studies need to be done to better document the larval food plants of this butterfly. It
is a State Candidate in Washington, and a Federal Species of Concern (Pyle 2002:186; R. Pyle and T. Pyle
2000).
The Makah copper and another butterfly, the Ozette
skipper, are both sun worshipers, nectaring on plants that are
in full sun in the heat of the day, when their main predators—
birds—are least active (Peterson 1992:xiii). The Ozette skipper is
a variation of the woodland skipper (Ochlodes sylvannoides) and
is 2-3 cm. across. It is composed of blotchy patterns of yellow,
orange and tan. It is still being studied to see if it warrants taxonomic
distinction in the form of separate subspecific recognition
(R. Pyle and T. Pyle 2001). Grasses and sedges are potential host
plants to the skippers. Even less is known about the life cycle of
the Ozette skipper.
Open habitats on the Olympic Peninsula are known to
Figure 7. Great burnet (Sanguisorba officinalis), a
plant used for nectar by the Makah copper. Photograph
by Fred Sharpe, 2007.

e important nesting sites for some ground nesting birds, as well as for cavity nesters that prefer snags in
areas with more sunlight than the dense forest. Although bird inventories have not been conducted on the
Ozette Prairies, they may be host to some cavity and ground nesters not found in the heart of the coniferous
forests. These would be such birds as horned larks, western yellow throats, western bluebirds, and
Lewis’s woodpeckers (Fred Sharpe pers. comm. 2007).
Role of the Ozette Prairies in the Life of the Makah
The Ozette Prairies were useful to the culture and economy of the Makah, the native people who
occupied the Ozette and the Cape Flattery region before settlement by Europeans and Asians in the mid-
1800s. Although the Makah made much of their living from the sea, fishing and hunting marine mammals,
they depended on the land for a large portion of their food and much of the material they used for
clothing, shelter, tools, implements, and ritual objects. Due to their biodiversity and openness, the Ozette
Prairies provided the habitat that supported many of the plants and animals from which food and material
were derived.
Extensive permanent occupation of the Ozette Village and its surroundings began approximately
2,000 years ago (Croes and Blinman 1980; Wessen 1984; Samuels and Daugherty 1991:11). Archeological
evidence reveals that the food procurement strategies and technologies, basketry and cordage manufacturing
styles, and woodworking techniques remained stable over the period of occupation, suggesting
2,000 years of cultural continuity (Wessen 1990; Croes 1977).
Occupation of the northeastern Olympic Peninsula began as early as 11,000 BP at the Manis
Mastodon Site near Sequim. The only limiting factor for early occupation of the northwest corner of the
Olympic Peninsula was glacial ice that retreated over 12,000 years ago (Dave Conca pers. comm. 2008).
Chronometrically dated archeological deposits on the northwestern part of the peninsula are much later
with clear occupation dated around 4,560+/- 80 years B.P. on what is now the Makah Indian Reservation
(Dave Conca pers. comm. 2008) and 2,500 years ago at the mouth of the Hoko River (Croes and Blinman
1980). Non-chronometrically dated sites in the vicinity of Lake Ozette have been linked to occupations as
early as 5,000- 8,000 B.P. based on artifacts style but as of yet have not been substantiated by radiocarbon
dating (Conca 2000). Further research in this region will probably push back the limits of human occupation
in the Ozette area into the mid to early Holocene, about 4,000 to 8,000 years ago (Dave Conca pers.
comm. 2008).
10

Figure 8. Map of the Ozette Village site complex. After Huelsbeck and Wessen 1994.
The Makah had five main villages: Neah Bay, Biheda, Wuh-uhch’ (also spelled Wayacht, Waatch, and Wyatch),
Ts’oo-yuhs (also spelled Sooes, Tuess, and Tsooess), and Ozette. The Ozette Village was the southernmost
of these, and likely the largest during both prehistoric and early historic times (Samuels 1994:13;
Samuels and Daugherty 1991:4-5). It was situated near what is now called the Ozette River, which flows
11

to the sea to the north of Cape Alava, the farthest-west point of land in the coterminous United States. It
was a year-round village that encompassed a stretch of ocean beach and the islands of Tskawahyah (Cannonball),
Ozette, and Bodeltah (see Figure 8). The main part of the village faced the ocean above the rocky
beach, bounded to the east by a steep hill with spruce forests and an understory of western swordfern
(Polystichum munitum) (Gill 2005:55) (see Figure 9). A large offshore reef was exposed at low tide, allowing
easy and safe access by canoe (Mauger 1991:39). To distinguish these people from the Makah in general,
this report will use the terms “Ozette people” or “the Ozette.”
An earthquake struck the Ozette region on January 26, 1700 A.D. (Atwater et al. 2005), causing a
massive mudslide that buried several Makah plank houses at the Ozette Village. The vast wall of liquified
clay had the effect of freezing the daily life of a few Ozette families in time. In February of 1970, Pacific
storm waves exposed part of a longhouse, and then between 1970 and 1981, basketry, cordage, harpoons,
lines, bags, pegs, tools, weapons, and boxes were uncovered by Washington State University archaeologists,
in cooperation with the Makah and the National Park Service. In all, more than 50,000 artifacts were
excavated. Hundreds of thousands of bones and shell fragments from sea and land mammals, birds, fish,
and invertebrates were identified, quantified, and interpreted (Huelsbeck 1994a and 1994b; Wessen 1994;
DePuydt 1994).
Figure 9. Ozette Indian village, one of five Makah villages, in 1879. It faced the Pacific Ocean near Cape Alava, twenty miles south of Cape
Flattery. Courtesy of the North Olympic Library System. .
12

As unfortunate as the mudslide was for the Ozette people, it preserved enough of their physi-
cal culture to allow for the weaving together of a fairly complete picture of village life. In general, the
environment of the Olympic Peninsula “favors neither the preservation nor recognition of archaeological
resources,” says archaeologist Gary Wessen (1990:412). This is due to “heavy precipitation, dense
vegetation, acidic soil, and frequently rugged relief, combined with the erosive effects of swift rivers and
exposed beaches.” We are lucky, therefore, to have the Ozette Village site, along with a few rare wet sites
where artifacts have been well preserved due to the lack of oxygen (Wessen 1990:412).
As was the case with many native groups, the lifeways of the Ozette people were disrupted early
in the period of white incursion and settlement, eliminating most opportunities for anthropologists or
other observers to record those lifeways in writing (Colson 1953; Wray 1997). When James Swan (1964:6)
took the first census of the Ozette Village in 1869, he came up with only 188 people. The people had
already lost between one-half and two-thirds of their population, probably due to introduced diseases.
There may have been as many as 564 residents at the height of village life just prior to European contact.
If two-thirds of the population were wiped out by disease as estimated by Boyd (1990:145), then the estimate
would be 564 people at contact. Archaeologist Jeff Mauger (pers. comm. 2007) gives a more conservative
estimate of 376 at contact. He took Swan’s 1869 census of the Ozette Village which was 188 people
and then factored in disease, estimating that half the
population was wiped out by the time Swan took the
census.
In 1893, the people living in the village were
confined to the 719-acre Ozette Reservation that was
established by presidential proclamation, but this
area, while it encompassed the village proper, still
contained only a fraction of their original territory and
undoubtedly they were forced to alter significantly
their gathering and hunting regimes. They likely still
harvested and hunted in Roose’s Prairie, however, as
the southeast corner of the Ozette Reservation encompassed
what is today the northern part of Roose’s
Prairie. By 1896 the federal government began requiring
the Ozette people to send their children to school.
To comply, families started moving to other reservations,
particularly the Makah Reservation. Bud Klock
(pers. comm. 2003), whose family moved to Sekiu in
13
Figure 10. Lars Ahlstrom. #33111, Accession OLYM-567.
Courtesy of the Olympic National Park archives. Photograph
by Robert Hess, 1956.

1928, notes that “tuberculosis and smallpox wiped
out a lot of the Ozette Indians and they disintegrated
and went different ways to different reservations.”
In 1888 the Ozette Village had only 91 inhabitants; in
1901, 44; in 1906, 35; and in 1923, 8. The last Indians
to remain on the reservation were Charlie Weberhard
and Elliott Anderson (Hult 1956). By the late 1930s
the removal of the Ozette people from the Ozette area
was complete. Nobody lives there today (See Table 1).
In 1970, Congress transferred the Ozette Reservation
to the Makah Tribe (Johnson 2006).
14
In the first decade of the 1900s, two Swedish
immigrants, Lars Ahlstrom and Peter Roose (for
whom the two main wetlands are now named) came
Figure11. Pete Roose at his place. Emil Person’s dad, Emil
Person, Senior, took the photograph in the 1930s.
to settle on the Ozette Prairies on 160-acre claims
(Magnusson 2000:33; Bertelson 1948; Anonymous
1932) (see Figures 10 and 11). Lars Ahlstrom, from Bollnas, Sweden, settled on what came to be known
as Ahlstrom’s Prairie in 1902, while Peter Roose, from the same town, settled northeast of there on what
came to be know as Roose’s Prairie in 1907 (Bertelson 1948; Magnusson 2000:33). They built cabins, barns,
and other structures, put up fences, plowed for growing potatoes and berries, and grazed sheep, cattle,
and horses (University of Oregon 1989; Emil Person pers. comm. 2006; Bertelson 1948) (see Figures 12
and 13). These activities likely
had some effect on the wetlands’
vegetation and ecology. It must be
noted, however, that both Roose
and Ahlstrom set fire to parts of
the wetlands periodically, following
in general form, if not in
detail, the former practices of the
Ozette people (Klock pers. comm.
2002; Vanderhoof 1960). It is difficult
to know exactly how the
human disturbance of Roose and
Figure 12. Pete Roose’s homestead looking north. The picket fences and structures are
Ahlstrom changed the face of the of western redcedar. From left to right is the storage shed, new house, barn (in the background),
and old house. The storage shed, new house, and barn are still standing today.
wetlands—or, more to the point, Photograph taken in the 1930s. Photographer unknown. From the photo collection of
Emil Person.

Figure 13. Ahlstrom’s homestead from the article “Here’s a man who went West just as far as he could go”, which appeared in the Seattle Times,
Sunday, July 25, 1954. According to Emil Person, “This photo was taken from the east side of the prairie looking West. Another trail ran on the
ocean side through the woods. It started from where Pete Roose’s mill, root house, and another little building were. It dropped down into a little
flat there. It came out at Ahlstrom’s house. I don’t think I could find it again, it’s all grown over” (pers. comm. 2007).
how the wetlands might be different today had Roose and Ahlstrom not settled there.
Because Ozette use of the wetlands ended by the early 1900s, we lack a complete historical or eth-
nographic record of how these people interacted with the wetlands. More than one hundred years after
their relocation, descendants of the last Ozettes still remember the importance of the Ozette Prairies to
their people. They recall some of the plants their elders gathered on the Ozette Prairies (see Table 4), the
animals their elders hunted there, and some of the efforts the people undertook to keep the Ts’oo-yuhs
wetlands on the Makah Reservation productive (see Appendix 5).
The Makah called themselves Qwidicca-atx, meaning “people who live on the cape by the rocks
and seagulls.” James Swan wrote that their remote territory was “almost out of the world,” but to the
Makah, of course, this land was, and still is the center of the world (Swan 1971; Erikson et al. 2002). The
name Makah is itself from a Klallam word that means “generous with food” (Pascua 1991:40), which suggests
that the Makah territory had a bountiful supply of edible plants and animals.
One reason for the Makah’s plenitude was that they were able to exploit the rich resources of
both land and sea (see Figure 14). Through much of the year, they focused on the ocean. California gray
15

Table 1. Timeline for Major Events Affecting the Ozette Prairies
Settlement and Relocation Date Reference
Permanent occupation of the Ozette Village 2000 B.P. (Samuels and Daugherty 1991:11)
Ozette Indian Reservation established by
the federal government
M.J. Boyle (an Indian) is living on what will
become Ahlstrom’s Prairie
The federal government begins requiring
the Ozette people to send their children
to school and they begin to move to other
reservations
Lars Ahlstrom moves to Ahlstrom’s Prairie
and lives in an Ozette Indian hut
whales were hunted in spring and summer and provided a large amount of the village’s food, as well as
sinew for bowstrings and bones for war clubs (Swan 1964; Pascua 1991:40). Hair seals and northern fur
seals were hunted for their meat and oil (Swan 1964; Samuels 1994:87). Women dug clams with yew sticks
at ebb tide, pried mussels and barnacles loose with tools made of whale ribs, and collected many other
kinds of invertebrates—including shrimp, chitons, crabs, rock oysters, scallops, razor and butter clams,
sea cucumbers, china slippers, and abalone—from tidepools and mudflats (Singh 1966:233). Halibut,
silver salmon, king salmon, sockeye salmon, lingcod, and perch were also important components of the
Makah diet (Huelsbeck and Wessen 1994; Pascua 1991; Singh 1966:15-19), and depending on the species
and the season, fishing might occur in the ocean, on the Ozette River, or on Ozette Lake. The Makah constructed
enclosures of rocks to trap perch for food in the ocean in front of the Ozette Village (Waterman
1920).
Despite their distinct orientation to the sea, the Makah—and the Ozette in particular—certainly
did not ignore the land as a source of food and other resources. Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti),
black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), and black bears (Ursus americanus altifrontalis) were
hunted for their meat and hides, although as a percentage of the meat diet these terrestrial mammals were
less important than sea mammals and fish (Swan 1964:24; Singh 1966; Samuels 1994). Plants, too, were
16
1893 (Wray 1997)
1895 (GLO 1895 Survey for T31NR16W)
1896 (Wray 1997)
1902 (Bertelson 1948)
Pete Roose settles on Roose’s Prairie 1907 (Magnusson 2000:33)
Ozette Indian Reservation has two people 1932 (Wray 1997)

Figure 14. Makah seasonal round.
17

a significant part of the Makah’s material culture and food supply, as will be detailed below. In fact, the
Makah would have found it difficult to carry on their ocean-based economy without plant products, since
fish nets, fishing lines, fish weirs, baskets for the gathering of marine invertebrates, storage containers for
dried salmon, fish drying racks, harpoon lines, harpoon shafts, canoe sails, and canoes were all constructed
from materials derived from plants.
Relative to animals (both marine and terrestrial), plants are not well represented in the archaeo-
logical record. Whereas the bones, shells, and calcified exoskeletons of animals resist decay and remain
in the soil for archaeologists to analyze, most plant tissue is highly perishable, especially in the moist
environment of the Olympic Peninsula. With few exceptions, the remains of plants utilized by the Makah
and other tribes of the Olympic Peninsula have not survived. In Pacific Northwest archaeology in general,
this has resulted in a systematic bias toward groups’ animal-based material culture and toward the roles
of men, who did most of the hunting and fishing.
Nevertheless, we know from the several other types of evidence that plants were as impor-
tant overall to the Makah as animals. Plants provided fuel for heat and cooking, building materials for
structures, pliable leaves, stems, and roots for basketry, medicines, and fiber- and vitamin-rich foods for
balancing a diet high in meat. After interviewing some Makah elders in the 1980s, Steven Gill (2005) concluded
that plant foods may have made up almost 50 percent of the diet.
One reflection of the dual importance of land and sea to the Makah is their calendar (see Table
2). In keeping with the view that time is circular rather than linear in nature, the Makah call the year ts e
qwa q Etc, which means “once around,” and they name each lunar month for a significant feature of that
time of the year. For most of the months, this feature is the appearance of or harvest time for a particular
plant or animal (Waterman 1920:45 vol. I). Months named after plants (five) outnumber those named for
animals (four). The natural cycles of renewal underlying this conception of the year were the heartbeat of
Makah life, and these cycles in turn determined the portion of the varied natural world toward which the
Makah turned their attention at any particular season. From their calendar, we can infer that the Makah
were tied to terrestrial landscapes, and in seeking a certain kind of berry or other plant, they would return
year after year to the particular places where that plant could be found. The fact that the month of September
is connected with “the season for cranberries” underscores the importance of bogs as a habitat
type to the Makah food economy. According to George B. Rigg (1925) who authored a number of articles
on sphagnum bogs of the Pacific coast (1940; 1958), listed the bog cranberry as a characteristic bog plant
and noted that it had “been found outside of bogs in very rare instances only.”
The Ozette people ranged widely over their territory to hunt and gather the land’s resources.
18

Table 2. The Makah Seasonal Round, as Reflected in Names of the Lunar Months
Month Makah Name Meaning of the Makah Name
December Si’hwaxpEL whaling season
January I3i’kw1spEL young-one season (female whales are gravid with offspring)
February LuLu’tEkpEL the season when women are avoided
March U3u’tEkpEL whale
April Oqoska’d1LpEL season when the salmonberry bushes sprout
May KakEcpEL salmonberries are ripe
June Hisiga’ktkpEL red huckleberries are ripe
July Qaqyitoa’pExpEL salalberries are ripe
August Wiwi’kyukpEL season for doing nothing
September Q!a’spEL season for woodworking; also season for cranberries
October Ts!ibExwatitxpEL season for taking rock-fish
November [not recognized]
Each habitat—cleared areas near the village, riparian corridors, forests, wetlands, coastal dunes, the
Ozette River, and Ozette Lake—provided a different set of useful plants and/or animals.
In the vicinity of the Ozette Village, plant patches in cleared areas and on middens supported
populations of cow parsnip for edible stems, nettles for edible greens, stems for cordage, and roots for
medicine (Gill 2005). After white explorers introduced the potato (Solanum tuberosum), the Ozettes cultivated
fields of the tubers on the north and south sides of the Ozette Village and at Ozette Lake (Singh
1966:60).
The sunny riparian corridors provided a variety of edible berries. The roots (or rhizomes) of the
yellow pond lily (Nuphar lutea ssp. polysepalum) were collected along the margins of Ozette Lake and used
for medicine (Gunther 1973:29). Tules and cattails for the making of mats and baskets were also collected
here.
On the coastal dunes, the large edible roots of yellow sand verbena (Abronia latifolia) were dug
in the fall (Gunther 1973). This habitat also yielded the fruits of beach strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis), the
edible roots of Pacific silverweed (Argentina egedii), (Gill 2005), and the roots of beach rye (Leymus mollis
ssp. mollis). Bundles of the latter were used by the Makah to rub the body after bathing to stimulate the
circulation (Pat Boachup pers. comm. 2002; Gunther 1973:21).
Seashore wetlands near the mouth of the Ozette, Ts’oo-yuhs’ Wuh-uhch’, and Hoko Rivers pro-
vided several kinds of edible roots, including the Pacific silverweed and Wormskjold’s clover (Trifolium
wormskjoldii) (Croes 1980:15, 17). At the mouth of the Ts’oo-yuhs River the Makah harvested the limp,
tape-like leaves of eelgrass (Zostera marina) for making beautiful black designs in baskets of a fine weave
(Alden et al. 1998; Gary Ray, Makah, pers. comm. 2007). The forests provided wood for carving masks,
19

oxes, spoons, and bowls. Mature coniferous forests yielded bark for clothing, rope, and basketry, and
branches and trunks for firewood, canoes, and structures.
One of the most important terrestrial habitats on which the Makah (and Ozette people) depended
was the wetlands. The wetlands provided a great diversity and dense populations of edible plants, basketry
materials, and medicinal plants; they were one of the best places to hunt Roosevelt elk and deer;
and as open habitats they served as good temporary habitation sites and corridors for accessing other
areas and habitats. So important were wetlands to the Makah that Gary Ray, Makah, describes them as
“pantries” (pers. comm. 2007), and it appears that proximity to a wetland was an important criterion in
choosing where to site a village. All five Makah villages were within easy walking distance of at least one
wetland, and two villages, Wuh-uhch’ (Waatch) and Ts’oo-yuhs’ (Tsooess), were built adjacent to coastal
wetlands (see Figure 15).
People in the Ozette Village had access to at least six wetlands: Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s Prairies,
Manny’s Prairie, West Prairie (also known as Cape Alava Prairie), Sand Point Trail Prairie, and Allen’s
Prairie (see Table 3). There is definitive evidence that the Ozette made visits to the Ozette Prairies (Roose’s
and Ahlstrom’s). T.T. Waterman (1920 Vol. I) recorded an Ozette place name—TLisidatsan’ktsi—that meant
“going over to the prairie” and referred to a place where a trail from the beach goes inland toward the
prairies (this spot on the Waterman map approximates where the Cape Alava Trail lies today) (see Figure
16). In addition, we know from Ernest Bertelson’s 1948 article about Lars Ahlstrom that Ahlstrom’s
Prairie had at least one Ozette structure when Lars Ahlstrom got there in 1902. Finally, James Swan, in his
1864 journal, describes walking through West and Ahlstrom’s Prairies to Ozette Lake on an obvious trail,
guided by Ozette people who clearly knew where they were going (Swan 1859-1866). (See Appendix 2).
Table 3. Wetlands in the Ozette Traditional Territory and their Estimated Size at Post-contact
Wetland
Post-contact Size
(estimated acres)
Citation
Ahlstrom’s 150 Emil Person, pers. comm. 2006
Roose’s 150 Holyoke 2003
Manny’s 200 Emil Person, pers. comm. 2006
West 19 Kunze 1989
Sand Point 90 Kunze 1989
Allen’s 53 Kunze 1989
Ts’oo-yuhs 140 Gary Ray (Makah) pers. comm. 2007
Hobuck 70 Collins 1996
Baada several acres Collins 1996
Prairie along Wuh-uhch’ Slough (between
Washburn’s Store and Cannery Wharf)
? Waterman 1920 Vol. I
Note: “post-contact” covers a long period of time in which the size of of the areas may well have changed due to human impacts.
20

Figure 15. Swan map of Wuh-uhch’ (Waatch) and Ts’oo-yuhs (Tsooess) Villages adjacent to wetlands. Map by J.G. Swan, 1862. Jefferson County
Clerk Territorial District Court Case File #2-856, Series NW316-3-2. Courtesy of Washington State Archives: Northwest Region, Bellingham.
21

Figure 16. T.T. Waterman map. #22 according to Waterman is “Place where a trail from the beach passes inland, “tLisidatsa’ktsi” which means
“going over to the prairie.”
22

Figure 17. Map of the wetlands accessed by the Ozette Village.
23

It is possible that the Ozettes visited all six wetlands to hunt and to gather foods, basketry materi-
als, medicines, and cordage materials because they all contain culturally significant plants that would
have been useful to the people (see Appendix 1). Manny’s Prairie was northeast of the old village; West
Prairie was southeast (and one-quarter of a mile west of Ahlstrom’s Prairie). Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s
Prairies were also southeast of the village, and about a half mile from the Ozette River (because of this
proximity to the river, they were probably accessed both by trail and by canoeing up the river and then
going overland). Sand Point Prairie is west of Ozette Lake and Allen’s Prairie is at the south end of Ozette
Lake; it may have been shared with the Quileute (see Figure 17).
It is feasible that Ozette families accessed the Ozette Prairies not only by land but also by the
Ozette River coming up at various times of the year to fish, hunt, and gather plants. According to Larry
Sears (pers. comm. 2007) Roose had a trail to the Ozette River and a fish camp, which consisted of “four
poles and a metal roof” and it is probable that this camp was accessed by an Indian trail or Indians at
least had some kind of trail to Roose’s Prairie from the river. According to Ruby El Hult (1956), “They [the
Ozette] pushed their long dugout canoes up
the Ozette River four miles inland to Lake
Ozette to take blueback salmon, which they
dried in quantity.” Years later when the
Ozette Reservation was established “one
corner of the reservation took in a bend of
the Ozette River, so they might continue
to take their staple sockeye salmon” (Hult
1956). The reservation also was drawn up
to encompass the northern end of Roose’s
Prairie, perhaps because of its valuable
Figure 18. Bud and Vera Klock. Photographed by George McCormick which
plant resources. Vera Klock’s grandmother appeared in the Forks Forum article “Klocks are grand pioneers for Fun
Days”, July 10, 2000.
was Johanna Erickson who married Anders
Nylund and they took a homestead at the north end of Ozette Lake in 1895 and then moved to Royal
(see Figure 18). “My mother [Inga Nylund Evans] used to tell how they [the Ozette] would come up the
Ozette River in their canoes and they [my mother and her sisters] would stand on the banks and holler
at them” (pers. comm. 2002). Inga Nylund Evans wrote a newspaper article (circa early 1940s Vera Klock
pers. comm. 2009) recalling that: “The Indians used to paddle up the river past our place in their canoes,
and into the lake. The Indians would camp along the lake shore, mostly at the south end” (Evans n.d.).
In a 1981 newspaper article by Mary Petroff, Hulda Sullivan Nylund (Inga’s sister) also recalled
that “the Ozette Indians, who were always friendly to the white man, travelled by canoe up the Ozette
24

River from their village
to Eagle Point
where they caught,
dried and smoked
salmon.”
The Ozette
Prairies were probably
visited all year
round, because every
season offered a particular
set of foods
or useful materials.
In spring there was Figure 19. Salal (Gaultheria shallon) berries on Roose’s Prairie. Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007.
young Indian tea and
good hunting; in summer the various berries took their turns ripening and basketry materials and Indian
tea could be collected; in fall there were cranberries,
Indian tea, bracken fern rhizomes, and basketry materials
ready for harvesting; in winter Roosevelt elk and
deer could be hunted (Anderson 2002-2007; Gunther
1936; Singh 1966:66).
Through oral interviews and a review of the
ethnographic and historical literature, we know that at
least nine kinds of plants were gathered on the Ozette
Prairies (see Table 4). In addition, based on what we
know about the plants used by the Makah and what
grows today on the wetlands, we can say another
twenty-one plant species were likely gathered on the
wetlands and/or ecotones (see Table 5). These plants
are discussed below, grouped into the general categories
of berries, leaves for tea, root foods, basketry
materials, and plants used for other purposes.
Four kinds of berries were gathered on the
Ozette Prairies: bog cranberries and bog blueberries
25
Figure 20. Salal berries are still gathered by Indians and
non-Indians alike. Elizabeth Barlow, Hoh River resident, and
granddaughter of John Huelsdonk, using salal sauce as a topping
on vanilla ice cream.

in the wet areas, and salal berries
and evergreen huckleberries in
the drier areas and ecotones (see
Figures 19, 20, and 21). There is
evidence to indicate that berries,
as a group, were considered one
of the most important resources
that the wetlands had to offer.
James Swan found that the
people at Wuh-uhch’ Village
were reluctant to give him their
names for a census in the late
Figure 21. Edie Hottowe, Makah, picking evergreen huckleberries (Vaccinium ovatum
var. ovatum) in front of the Makah Cultural and Research Center.
1850s because they feared that doing so
would result in “the Bostons” bringing
“great herds of cattle” that would “eat up all their grass and berries” (Swan 1971:111–13). In an interview
for this project, Cindy Lee Claplanhoo (Makah, pers. comm. 2002) put cranberries on a short list of the
important items the Ozette people lost access to when they moved to the Makah Reservation. Another
indicator of the importance of berries is that four months of the year were named after berries.
Berries were a healthy, tasty food, and in addition to being eaten fresh, they could be dried in
cakes for future use (Gill 2005:409). We know through archaeological evidence that berries were very important
to the Ozette people. Gill (1984:412) says: “The 448,943 non-coniferous seeds recovered from the
excavation area of the Ozette Village provide ample evidence of the importance of berries in the diet. Of
these seeds 99.69 % were salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), elderberry (Sambucus racemosa var. arborescens),
salal (Gaultheria shallon) or huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.).”
While we do not know the species of Vaccinium eaten at Ozette (through archaeological evidence),
we do know that large quantities of one Vaccinium---Vaccinium oxycoccus (bog cranberries) were gathered
by the Makah at Neah Bay and that they formed an item of trade with non-Indians as Swan recorded in
his diary on October 23, 1859 that “Mr. Webster shipped on board of the Hartford 23 barrels of cranberries”
(Swan 1859-1866).
The leaves of most of these berries had various other uses. Salal leaves were used to flavor
smoked fish and to remove the fishy taste when cooking halibut heads (Densmore 1939:14). Gary Ray
(Makah, pers. comm. 2007) reports that “salal leaves were gathered and chewed for stomach disorders
and diarrhea.” The leaves of bog blueberries were sweetened and used to make tea given to mothers for a
26

Species Uses
Bog Blueberry
(Vaccinium uliginosum)
Bog Cranberry
(Vaccinium oxycoccus)
Bog Cranberry
(Vaccinium oxycoccus)
Bog Cranberry
(Vaccinium oxycoccus)
Bracken Fern
(Pteridium aquilinum var.
pubescens)
Bracken Fern
(Pteridium aquilinum var.
pubescens)
Bracken Fern
(Pteridium aquilinum var.
pubescens)
Ca bup
(Carex obnupta)
Evergreen
Huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum)
Indian Tea
(Ledum groenlandicum)
Salal
(Gaultheria shallon)
Vancouver
Groundcone
(Boschniakia hookeri)
Wild Onions
(Allium sp.)
Table 4. Plants Gathered on the Ozette Prairies that were Traditionally Used
Plant
Part
Location
27
Time of Year
Harvested
Reference
Food Fruit Ozette Prairies Gill 2005:410-411
Food Fruit Ozette Prairies
Food Fruit
Medicine Leaves
Ahlstrom’s
Prairie
Ahlstrom’s
Prairie
Food Rhizomes Ozette Prairies
Medicine
(toothache)
Materials
(for cleaning
fi sh
and laying
fi sh on)
Basketry
Material
Fiddleheads
Food Fruit
Beverage/
Medicine
August –
November
August to Early
September
“Root vegetables
are usually
better after the
fronds have
died back in
the fall” (Nancy
Turner pers.
comm. 2007)
Gill 2005:409-410; Gary Ray,
Makah, (pers. comm. 2007);
Cindy Lee
Claplanhoo, Makah, (pers.
comm. 2002); Leah Parker,
Makah/Lummi (pers.
comm. 2002);
Gill 2005:477
Gill 2005:477
Gill 2005:367;
Vanderhoof 1960
Gunther 1973:14
Leaves Gunther 1973:14
Leaves Ozette Prairies July – October
Leaves
According to
Buckingham
(1975:77) this
plant occurs on
Roose’s Prairie
Food Fruit Ozette Prairies
Food Tuber Ozette Prairies
September –
November
September –
October
July –
November
Melissa Peterson, Makah,
(pers. comm. 2003); Cindy Lee
Claplanhoo, Makah, (pers.
comm. 2002); Gary Ray,
Makah, (pers. comm. 2006)
Kate McCarty
(pers. comm. 2002); Vanderhoof
1960;
Gill 2005:409
Gill 2005:407; Yvonne Wilke,
Makah, pers. comm. 2002;
Gary Ray, Makah, (pers.
comm. 2007)
Gill 2005:406; Swan 1869:25;
Gary Ray (pers. comm. 2007)
Ed Wilbur
(pers. comm. 2002)
Food Bulb Roose’s Prairie Parratt 2009

Species Uses Plant Part Location
Beadruby (Maianthemum
dilatatum)
California Hazelnut
(Corylus cornuta var.
californica)
Cascara Sagrada (Frangula
purshiana)
Common Camas (Camassia
quamash var. azurea)
Deer Fern
(Blechnum spicant)
Elk Moss
(Lycopodium clavatum)
Fool’s Huckleberry
(Menziesia ferruginea)
Giant Horsetail
(Equisetum telmateia var.
braunii)
Pacifi c Crabapple (Malus
fusca)
Pearly-everlasting
(Anaphalis margaritacea)
Table 5. Useful Plants Likely Gathered on Manny’s, Ozette, or West Prairies
Food Berries
Disks for
Gambling
Game
Food
Medicine
Branches
Trunk
Berries
Bark
Food Bulbs
Food, Medicine
(for lung
trouble and
stomachache)
Medicine
Leaves
Whole
Plants
Mats Branches
Food,
Medicine
(fertile shoots
only)
Food,
Medicine
Massage to
soften skin
Bulbs and
Young Fertile
and Sterile
Shoots
Fruit
Leaves
28
Drier portions of
Ahlstrom’s and
Roose’s Prairies
(Bowcutt 2007;
Gill 1984)
Roose’s Prairie
(Weissbach and
Bivin 1997)
Roose’s Prairie
(Weissbach and
Bivin 1997)
Manny’s Prairie
(Gill 1984)
Ahlstrom’s and
Roose’s Prairies
(Bowcutt 2007;
Gill 1984)
Manny’s Prairie,
drier areas
of Ahlstrom’s
Priairie, and
mounds in bogs
of West Prairie
(Gill 1982:1)
Ozette Prairies
(Weissbach and
Bivin 1997)
Ahlstrom’s
Prairie
(Bowcutt 2007)
Ahlstrom’s
Prairie
(Bowcutt 2007)
Ahlstrom’s
Prairie
(Gill 1984)
Time of Year
Harvested
September –
November
July and
August
Reference
Gill 2005:428
Densmore 1939
Swan 1870: 44
Gunther 1973:40; Gill
2005:308-309
Gill 2005:427 1
Densmore 1939:319;
Gill 2005:365
Glenn Duncan
(pers. comm. 2002)
Densmore 1939:320
Gill 2005:363; Gunther
1973:10
Gill 2005:390-391
Densmore 1939:321
1 James Swan planted camas in garden beds on March 27, 1862, at Neah Village. He was served camas at three houses at
the Ozette Village on October 22, 1863. He was served camas on July 30, 1864, at Ol’ George’s lodge.

Species Uses Plant Part Location
Salmonberry
(Rubus spectablis)
Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis)
Skunk cabbage
(Lysichitum americanus)
Skunk cabbage
(Lysichitum americanus)
Skunk cabbage
(Lysichitum americanus)
Skunk cabbage
(Lysichitum americanus)
Sphagnum spp.
Springbank Clover
(Trifolium wormskjoldii)
Stinging Nettle
(Urtica dioica ssp. gracilis)
Medicine,
Food,
Pipes
Basketry
Material
Materials
(drying salal
berries and
lining berry
baskets with
them)
Medicine (raw
root chewed
to induce
abortion)
Medicine
(boiled roots
are drunk to
purify the
blood)
Medicine
(warm the
leaves and
apply to the
chest for pain)
Camp Bedding,
Medicine
(for dressing
wounds)
Bark
Fruits and
Sprouts
Branches
Roots
Leaves
Roose’s Prairie
(Weissbach and
Bivin 1997)
Ahlstrom’s and
Roose’s Prairies
(Bowcutt 2007)
Ahlstrom’s and
Roose’s Prairies
(Bowcutt 2007)
29
Gill 1984
Gill 2005:372-373;
Gary Ray, Makah,
pers. comm. 2006-
2007
Gunther 1973:22
Roots Gunther 1973:22
Roots Gunther 1973:22
Leaves Gunther 1973:22
Whole Plant
Food Roots
Cordage,
Food,
Medicine
Stems
Young Tops
Roots &
Stems
On prairie
north of trail
(Buckingham
1976-77)
On prairie
north of trail
(Buckingham
1976-77)
Time of Year
Harvested
2 Gill’s Makah consultant said that her grandmother dug it at “the prairie” (Gill 2005:396).
Reference
Gunther 1973:50;
Gill 2005:361
Gill 2005:396 2 ; Gunther
1973:38
Gill 2005:396 2 ; Gunther
1973:38

Species Uses Plant Part Location
Tiger Lily
(Lilium
columbianum)
Unalaska Bunchberry
(Cornus unalaschkensis)
Water Sedge
(Carex aquatilis var. dives
formerly C. sitchensis)
Western Redcedar
(Thuja plicata)
Woodnympyh (Moneses
uniflora ssp. reticulata
formerly Pyrola uniflora)
Woodnympyh (Moneses
uniflora ssp. reticulata
formerly Pyrola uniflora)
Food Bulbs
Food Berries
Basketry
Material
Basketry
Material and
Cordage
Medicine
(decrease boils,
drain abcesses)
Medicine
(for coughs)
Leaves
Young
Branches
Leaves
Whole
Plants
Roose’s Prairie
(Weissback and
Bivin 1997)
Ahlstrom’s
Prairie, Allen’s
Prairie, and
Manny’s Prairie
(Bowcutt 2007;
Gill 1984)
In the woods
between
Ahlstrom’s and
Roose’s Prairies
(Buckingham
1976-77)
Ahlstrom’s and
Roose’s Prairies
(Bowcutt 2007)
30
Ahlstrom’s
Prairie
(Buckingham
1976-77: Gill
1984)
Ahlstrom’s
Prairie
Time of Year
Harvested
Probably in late
summer or fall
Reference
Gunther 1973:25;
Yvonne Wilke,
Makah, (pers. comm.
2002)
Gill 2005:404;
Gunther 1973:43
Underhill 1945:109
Gill 2005:369-371
Gill 2005:408
Densmore 1939:313,
315

Figure 22. Leah Parker at her home on the Makah Reservation.
Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007.
few days after childbirth to bring back their strength
(Gill 2005:411).
31
Various pieces of historical and interview evi-
dence indicate berry gathering on the Ozette Prai-
ries. Born July 1st, 1917, Leah Parker (Makah/Lummi,
pers. comm. 2002) remembered how she and her
mother (Bertha Smith) gathered cranberries on the
wetlands when she was a girl of 12 (see Figure 22):
“They [cranberries] were gathered in Novem-
ber. She [my mother] would carry them in a bucket.
We used to all have to pick berries so we would get
quite a bit. We gathered them at Ts’oo-yuhs and
Ozette Prairies. Those are the only two places that I
know of. There used to be a lot of berries. We used
to get ten-pound cans.”
Kate McCarty (pers. comm. 2002) remembered
gathering the berries of the evergreen huckleberry in the ecotone areas of the Ozette Prairies with her
Makah in-laws:
I know when we used to go down to Ozette [Prairies] on the trail, years ago before
they put the boardwalk in there, when we would go down there we would pick, in the
fall time, we would pick what they call Ozette berries. And they’re little, tiny, about
the size of a match head, a little bigger. And they’re a tiny, tiny huckleberry. The last
time I went to Ozette I didn’t see any of those plants—none. It grew under the trees
and the berries were almost black.
According to Greg Colfax, Makah (pers. comm. 2003): “They are some of the most fabulous cran-
berries you’ll ever want to sink your teeth into. We’ve picked cranberries around Ozette—off the Ozette
trail by Ahlstrom’s Prairie.”
Memories of picking bog cranberries at Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie are still fresh and some Makah still
gather them there today:
When I was a kid, I went with my mother [Ruth Claplanhoo], aunt, and
her children from the Ts’oo-yuhs River bridge to the cranberry bog and pick cranberries
in September or October when they turned red. There were a couple of acres. They

32
were small, but they were in abundance
so it was enjoyable to pick them. We
used watertight woven baskets to pick
any berries. We ate them raw or canned
them (Ed Claplanhoo, Makah, pers.
comm. 2002).
“My grandma [Hazel Purcer Johnson]
said it was time to pick cranberries out
at Ts’oo-yuhs after the first frost. It was
usually around the first of October. I
love them and I add sugar and water
and boil them down. Usually I keep
mine in the freezer. I don’t always cook
all of them. I usually save them because
I like to add them to breads. Sometimes
I just like to eat them by themselves because
they’re so high in vitamin C and
it’s just a really good, healthful food for
you. They used to take them and mash
them with meat or dried fish and make
little hard cakes for eating. You could
naturally let them air dry if it’s nice
Figure 23. Gary Ray, Makah, picking bog cranberries on Ts’oo-yuhs
Prairie, late September 2009.
weather or put them in the oven at a
low temperature if you don’t have a food
dehydrator” (Cathy Chamblin-Peterson,
Makah, pers. comm. 2006) (see Figure 24).
My mother
used to pick
cranberries and
I went with her.
She picked at the
cranberry marsh
near the logging
road. I still
gather cranberries
today--especially
for Thanksgiving
and Christmas. I
pick at Ts’oo-yuhs.
They are eaten
raw or cooked as a
cranberry relish. If
I hit it just right,
I can get two
gallons of cranberries.
But I usually
shoot for a gallon-
-because it’s too much Figure 24. Cathy Chamblin-Peterson, Makah. Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007.

work picking them. I pick for one-half day and get tired. They are right on the moss.
I kneel, sit, and lay down. I gather the berries at the end of September to November.
Bears eat cranberries and maybe coyotes (Pat Boachup, Makah, pers. comm. 2002).
Ethnobotanist Steve Gill has established that both salal berries (2005:407) and bog blueberries
(2005:411) were gathered on the Ozette Prairies; and Gary Ray (Makah, pers. comm. 2007) corroborates
this fact for salal berries: “All of the Allabush [Makah] sisters—Isabel Ides, Ruth Claplanhoo, Lena Mc-
Gee, and Margaret Irving gathered them [salal] at the Ozette Prairies.”
Indian tea (Ledum
groenlandicum; also known as
wild, Hudson Bay, swamp,
Labrador, or cranberry tea)
was gathered on the Ozette
Prairies, where it grows in
association with cranberries.
A number of elders reported
the former practice of gathering
this plant on the wetlands.
Yvonne Wilke (pers.
comm. 2002), with agreement
from her mother, Sadie Johnson,
noted that “there is a
Figure 25. Indian tea (Ledum groenlandicum), also known as Labrador tea, was (and continues
to be) an important medicinal plant of the wetlands. Ahlstrom’s Prairie. Photograph by Kat
prairie too where they could get Anderson, 2007
tea at Ozette. They would gather
in September.” Leah Parker (pers. comm. 2002) said, “I imagine my mother picked the tea leaves because
she used to go and pick cranberries [there on the Ozette Prairies].” According to Kate McCarty (pers.
comm. 2007), “My mother-in-law said that there’s some Indian tea on the prairies. She meant Ozette
Prairies. When Spencer [her Makah husband] was alive, we went down to Ozette and he’d pick the tea. It
was sometime between 1960 and 1969.” Gary Ray (pers. comm. 2006) reported that “Isabel Ides [Makah]
gathered it there” and he says that the Indian tea plant is called “Ozette tea”—an allusion to both its use
by the Ozette people and its harvest on the Ozette Prairies.
Continuing an ancient custom, the Makah still gather the leaves from the reservation, steep
them and drink the resulting tea as a refreshing beverage (Anderson 2002-2007; Gill 1984). Pat Boachup
(Makah, pers. comm. 2002) describes the gathering and use of this plant:
33

I still gather them
[the leaves] every
year. We pick off
the leaves that have
molded or spoiled.
We collect the good
leaves and put them
in a warm place to
dry. If the leaves stay
in a plastic bag they
will turn black. They
are put in a paper
bag next to a wood
stove to dry. I take a
handful of leaves—
enough to cover the
top of the pot—and
put them in a pan or
pot with water. Take
a fork and push down the
leaves. When it starts
boiling turn it down and
steam it for 15-20 minutes. When it turns a rich orange it’s ready. If steamed too long,
it turns dark. I drink it most of the time hot with sugar. I gather 4 or 5 grocery bags
of dried leaves every year. You can pick it all year round, but I usually go in the fall—
September and October. To gather the leaves, take one or two pulls and the leaves come
off from each plant and I make sure I leave some leaves so as not to kill the plant.
Edie Hottowe, Makah, recalls: “We would gather the Indian tea at Ts’oo-yuhs when we were out
cranberry picking with my mother [Ada Thompson]. It grows along in the cranberry marsh. We went in
the fall, usually after a cold spell because it seemed to turn the cranberries a real pretty red color. They’re
more tart in flavor, but smaller than
a domesticated cranberry. The tea
grows right along with them. We
gathered them in October and the
early part of November. My mother
canned everything because we
didn’t have freezers. It wasn’t a great
amount. If we got a gallon it was a
lot” (pers. comm. 2002).
Figure 27.Tommy Peterson, Makah, picking Indian tea on Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie.
Figure 26. Pat Boachup, Makah, picking Indian tea on Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie, late September
2009.
34
Cathy Chamblin-Peterson, Makah,
says: “My gram [Hazel Purcer Johnson]
and I used to pick Indian tea in
September out at Ts’oo-yuhs. The

way I prepare it is sort it, taking out unwanted plants, and then I put it in brown paper sacks to let it dry.
Then after it’s dried totally, then I put them in plastic bags. I store the leaves in a dark, dry place where it
doesn’t get real hot or cold. It is brewed like loose leaf tea. You can drink it all day long and it’s good for
keeping you well. It’s good for colds. It’s getting harder to find healthier looking Indian tea. A lot of the
plants have sparse leaves that are blemished with disease. They’re not full and green like they used to be.
The area out at Ts’oo-yuhs for our Indian tea and cranberries is the size of a football field” (pers. comm.
2006).
Tea made from the leaves of Indian tea was, and still is, considered a general health tonic. William
Tyler (pers. comm. 2002) noted that Indian tea “was good for just about everything—for your lungs, for
breathing and for colds” (see Figure 28).
35
Two “root” crops
were dug on the Ozette
Prairies: bracken fern
rhizomes and the fleshy,
thickened tubers of
Vancouver groundcone
(Boschniakia hookeri).
Bracken fern rhizomes
were dug with a digging
stick, roasted in ashes,
peeled, and the starchy
center eaten (Gill 1984:50)
(see Figure 29).
According to Ed Wilbur
Figure 28. William (Makah) and Klara (Nu-chah-nulth) Tyler. Photographer unknown, 2002.
(pers. comm. 2008) the
tubers of Vancouver
groundcone were dug by Helma Ward, Makah, and her family in August and September on the Ozette
Prairies, and according to Helma “They used to be everywhere” (see Figure 30). Although camas may
have grown on the Ozette Prairies in prehistoric times, as far as we know the Ozette did not gather the
edible bulbs of this plant on any of the wetlands in their territory (Manny’s Prairie might be an exception—see
Table 5) —instead, they got their camas from the Quileute in exchange for dentalium shells
(Curtis 1913:145).

The Makah harvested
the leaves of ca bup (also known
as slough sedge or basket sedge)
(Carex obnupta) from the wetter
parts of the Ozette Prairies
for the horizontal strands in
basketry. Cindy Lee Claplanhoo
(Makah, pers. comm. 2002) described
where it was located on
the Ozette Prairies: “I remember
the grass growing right before
you get right into the marshes,
and we used to gather that and
let it dry.” Gary Ray (Makah, Figure 29. Edie Hottowe, Makah, pointing out a traditional gathering site of bracken fern root on the
Makah Reservation.
pers. comm. 2006) also recalled
basket sedge being
gathered on two prairies: “You’ve got to go down south a little farther at Ozette [Prairies] and Quillayute
[Prairie] to get the grass that they used for weaving.”
Contemporary weavers still gather basket sedge and remember harvesting it on the Ozette Prai-
ries: “We gathered...ca bup [Carex obnupta] to weave with...at the Ozette Prairies,” said Melissa Peterson
Figure 30. Cathy and Ed Wilbur. Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007.
36
(Makah, pers. comm.
2003). “The leaves of
cabupt are cut off at the
base with a knife from
July to October. I heard
that the later you wait
the tougher and thicker
they are. You separate
the leaves from the stalk,
then take the backbone
off, dry splitting with the
thumb nail or needle.”
Two other plant parts
used for basketry and

similar applications were likely gathered at the edges of the
Ozette Prairies: the roots of Sitka spruce trees and the limbs of
young redcedars (Singh 1966:25-26; Olson 1936:83). Although
spruce grows away from the wetlands as well as in wetland
ecotones, at the wetland edge the roots were easier to dig, as related
by Gary Ray (Makah, pers. comm. 2007): “on the edge of it
[the prairie] there was easy digging. Their [spruce] roots are just
right on the top. I learned this from Isabel Ides [Makah].” Cedar
limbs were probably harvested at the prairie edges for similar
reasons—they were more likely to be slender and supple.
Several other plants known to have been utilized by
the Makah were likely to have been harvested on the Ozette
Prairies. These include sphagnum moss (used for plugging and
insulating the seams of lodges [Swan 1964:5]) and crabapples (the
fruit was eaten and the bark was gathered to treat arthritis and
stomach upset) (Cindy Lee Claplanhoo pers. comm. 2002) as well
as others (see Tables 4 and 5).
The Ozette Prairies were also important places for hunting Roosevelt elk and black-tailed deer.
As open environments, the wetlands supported the rich growth of good forage for these animals and
were thus crucial for their survival in the area. At the same time, the Ozette people took advantage of the
fact that elk and deer were attracted to the wetlands and could be more easily tracked, stalked, and killed
there.
Several sources of information indicate that elk and deer were hunted in the region and on the
Ozette Prairies during the 1800s and into the early 1900s. James Swan jotted in his diary between 1863
and 1864 that the Makah hunted elk in the hills in the back of Neah Bay, between Neah Bay and Clallam
Bay, around Ozette Lake, and along the Tokwaxose River (Swan 1859-66). He spotted fourteen elk on
Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie on July 21, 1864. When Erna Gunther interviewed the Makah in 1934, they said that elk
were formerly plentiful in the Ts’oo-yuhs valley, Ozette country, and even came out to Cape Flattery. She
recorded that elk hunting was particularly good in spring and fall (Gunther 1936). If hunters were very
far from the village when they made their kills, they would stop and dry the meat, and this practice, she
was told, was common in Ts’oo-yuhs and Ozette country (Gunther 1871-1981). Ninety-two year-old Leah
Parker (Makah/Lummi pers. comm. 2007), old enough to have witnessed hunting on the wetlands before
they became part of Olympic National Park, said her family “used to hunt deer on the Ozette Prairies.”
37
Figure 31. The flower spike of slough sedge
(Carex obnupta) in Ahlstrom’s Prairie, Olympic
National Park. Photograph by Kat Anderson,
2007.

Born on February 2, 1926, eighty-three-year-old Kate McCarty (pers. comm. 2007) who has lived on the
Makah Reservation most of her life, said that she “learned from Hugh Smith [Makah] that the Makah
used to hunt deer out at the Ozette Prairies.” Henson (1960) described the Makah practice of hunting elk
and deer on the Ozette Prairies: “Indians, from the shelter of adjacent trees, could get close enough to the
animals to kill them with bows and arrows.”
Gary Ray, Makah, (pers. comm. 2006) talks about the advantages of hunting on prairies,
and specifically Ts’oo-yuhs
and Ozette Prairies: “There’s
deer, bear, and elk that graze
in there [Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie].
The reason that it’s so good
is because you can walk so
quietly in there. You just wait
for a certain wind and then
you enter the bog, whatever
bog you want to hike in opposite
the direction of the wind.
There was good visibility
and you can get so close--you
could almost jump on the
Figure 32. Gary Ray, Makah. Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007
backs of some of them. These
areas had to be maintained for hunting well back when all one had was a spear and bow and arrow. You
can get that close to the deer when they’re chomping on those cranberries. Same way with the bears. Deer
also eat the moss. I hunt there every year [Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie]. Just about fill our freezer up with all that
we need. There was good deer hunting on Ozette Prairies. It was always a pretty sure thing--that you
could get one there.”
Almost every part of the elk was used: elk skins were cut into strips for rope; elk horns were used
for barbs on harpoons, and as points for fish spears; elk bones were used for chisels; tallow provided a
face grease for prevention of chapping and sunburn and served as a base for paint; the meat and leg-bone
marrow provided food (Gunther 1936:117).
The Makah valued black-tailed deer for their meat, which was cooked and eaten on the spot or
dried. The hooves were turned into dance rattles; the horns into ceremonial items for dances; the deerskin
slit for dance aprons decorated with dewclaws at the end of each strip (Gunther 1936:117). Deer hide was
38

used to make deer-hide floats, probably used in sea mammal hunting (James Wesseler pers. comm. 2003).
It is likely that the Ozette people hunted bears on the wetlands as well. We know that black bears
were hunted by the Makah, that their skins were made into blankets and capes for whalers and others,
that their claws were used to make necklaces worn by shamans, and that their meat was eaten both fresh
and dried (Gunther 1936:114). As late as the early 1970s Makah children walking through the Ozette
Prairies on their way to the Ozette archaeological digs were told by their elders to wear something that
made noise to warn the bears because, as Gary Ray put it, “you seldom went through the prairies without
seeing bears” (pers. comm. 2007).
Finally, the Ozette Prairies may have been a place where the people hunted waterfowl and other
large birds. Erna Gunther recorded that the Makah hunted sandhill cranes “in the prairie” during the
month of April. These birds were favored for their meat (Gunther 1936:108). Ducks and geese would have
been attracted to the wetlands and were probably hunted there also.
Indian Management of the Ozette Prairies with Fire
Evidence for Indian burning of the Ozette Prairies comes from three sources: (1) Elizabeth Colson’s
abstract field notes, (2) newspaper accounts, and (3) oral interviews of non-Indians from families
with long-term histories on the Olympic Peninsula (see Appendices 3 and 4). Additionally, support for
burning in western Olympic Peninsula wetlands in general comes from old General Land Office surveys
and maps and oral interviews with Makah who remember the practice of burning on wetlands (Ts’ooyuhs
Prairie) on the Makah Reservation (see Appendix 5).
Other possible lines of physical evidence are summarized that were taken from a natural history
study conducted by Andy Bach and Dave Conca (2004).
Finally, wetlands ecologist Linda Kunze observed and recorded in her field notes that not only
parts of the Ozette Prairies are former burns, but that this phenomenon exists on the Cape Alava Prairie
(also called West Prairie), Sand Point Trail Prairie, Manny’s Prairie, and Allen’s Slough (Allen’s Prairie)
(Kunze 1989) (see Appendix 1).
Anthropologist Elizabeth Colson, professor emerita, UC Berkeley, conducted field research with
the Makah in the 1940s, lived with the Makah between November 1941 and December 1944, and pub-
lished a book in 1953 entitled, The Makah Indians: The Study of an Indian Tribe in Modern American Society.
39

She arrived early enough on the Makah Reservation to find an individual that still had memory of burning
on the Ozette Prairies. She interviewed Alice Kalappa (Makah) in the early 1940s about Ozette Settlements
and Ms. Kalappa said: “They used to burn the berry grounds, after they had picked the berries.
And the cranberry marsh, they would burn that to have a good marsh to keep the trees out. Now there
are lots of trees on the marsh because nobody takes care of it anymore” (Colson 1941-1944).
In 1940, reporter Jack Henson interviewed Charles Keller, one of the early non-Indian settlers in
the Ozette area. He reported that:
Explanations of small and large prairies in the peninsula area was given by Keller,
who claims the clearings were made by Indian fires.The Indians burned off the timber
so they could more readily kill the elk and deer by hiding in the timber along the edges
of the clearing and shooting the animals with their short range bows and arrows. Each
year for years the underbrush was burned over so that eventually there was a natural
open meadow on which grass grew. There was no heavy underbrush or trees left in the
tracts and the game congregated there to feed.
Keller had a long history in the Ozette area. In 1913 he moved out to West Clallam and until 1918
Keller logged, trapped, farmed and store clerked in the west end. He married Ida Nylund (whose fam-
ily homesteaded the Ozette Lake area in 1889-1890) in 1919 and the young couple went over the trail to
Ozette Lake in the fall of 1919 and lived on Umbrella Bay. In 1927 the Kellers built a tourist resort at Lake
Ozette and operated it until 1945 (Henson n.d.).
Keller spent time interviewing Makah at the Makah Reservation about historical events and his
consultants included Elliot Anderson. Elliot Anderson was the last Ozette Indian to live on the Ozette
Indian Reservation and was still living there in 1937 (Macy 1937). He took Anderson on one or several
field trips (Keller 1941). Superintendent Preston P. Macy wrote in a memorandom to the Director of the
National Park Service dated May 27, 1941 of Keller’s credentials: “Mr. Kellers [sic] having lived at Ozette
the greater part of his life and Mrs. Kellers [sic] having been born there, and knowing all of the old time
Indians, has made it possible to get information and acquire objects of interest that we otherwise could
acquire only with the expenditure of funds. As has been stated in previous correspondence, the only Indian
living, with rights on the Ozette Reservation, is well along in years and perhaps will last a comparatively
short time. He and the other old timers of neighboring tribes have a store of knowledge which Mr.
Keller is in position to acquire since he speaks their language and they have the confidence in him that is
required for acquiring information.”
Myra Vanderhoof is Charles Keller’s daughter. In an article published in 1960 she substantiated
her father’s claims of Indian burning of Ahlstrom’s Prairie. Myra Vanderhoof, as a descendant of Ozette
40

settlers, knew the area’s geography and settlement history intimately (Magnusson 2000). Jacilee Wray
conducted an interview with Myra in 1991 and she had this to say concerning Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s
Prairies: “The Indians did burn it every year or so, to keep down the trees, and to keep it open for the
deer, and also for the bracken fern, which was one of their staples.” When asked who she learned this
from, she said ....”that would have been dad [Charles Keller] telling me about those things.”
One newspaper account published November 28, 1953 (Anonymous 1953) mentions Indian burn-
ing of the Ozette Prairies in general. Four separate newspaper articles published between 1946 and 1960
Figure 33. Hans Boe slash-burning at Royal. From the article “Ozette Story: Ole
Boe describes first trip to Lake Ozette in 1890,” Port Angeles Evening News,
February 22, 1961. From the files of Brian Magnusson.
41
report Lars Ahlstrom saying that the
Ozette Indians had burned specifically
Ahlstrom’s Prairie before his arrival (see
Appendix 3). One of these articles states
that Ahlstrom also burned the prairie
(Bertelson 1948; Haugland 1946; Henson
1960; Vanderhoof 1960). Lars Ahlstrom
was interviewed by reporter Henrietta
Haugland in 1946, and again in 1948 by
Ernest B. Bertelson. The two other articles
published in 1960, were published
after Lars Ahlstrom’s death.The one by
Jack Henson was based on several interviews
conducted with Ahlstrom prior to
his death. The article by Myra Vanderhoof,
mentioned earlier, was according
to her, based on “memory and family
recollections, for Ahlstrom was neighbor
to our family for more than 50 years.”
Three non-Indians, and one
Indian whose families settled in the area early—James Wesseler, Bud Klock, Emil Person, and Bob Bowlby
(Jamestown S’Klallam)—corroborated Lars Ahlstrom’s testimony during interviews conducted between
2002 and 2007 (see Appendix 4).
General Land Office surveys conducted in the area at the end of the 1800s recorded land that had
been recently burned. In the 1895 General Land Office survey notes for Township 31 North, Range 16
West, there are no indications of burns in Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s Prairies, but the main portion of Roose’s

Prairie was not surveyed (see Table 6). While the word “burn” does not appear in Ozette wetlands, at the
south end of Ahlstrom’s Prairie there are the words “clearing” and “slashing” next to M.J. Boyle’s name.
Slash is the residue left after the clearing of woody plants. The piles are often burned called “slash/burning”
(see Figure 33). The wetlands are outlined in a solid, shaded block, and the block contains numerous
parallel lines indicating an opening of grass on the plat map (see Figure 34). The most interesting
information to be revealed in the 1895 GLO survey is that M.J. Boyle who lived on, what became known
as Ahlstrom’s Prairie, was identified as a Weberhard. Weberhard is an Ozette Indian family name. The
survey notes entry between sections 25 and 26 at 20.00 chains is: “Set a stake, 7 ft. long, for a corner of
lands claimed by M.J. Boyle a Weberhard (an Indian). Note. This is not the Charley Weberhard, who is
recognized by the Department, as holding land claim, adjoining the Ozette Village.” The areas designated
“burn” in these GLO surveys and plat maps included acreage in and around Manny’s Prairie, West
Prairie, and Sand Pt. Prairie (see Figures 34, 35, and 36). We do not know whether these fires were set by
Indians or by white settlers (Ahlstrom, Klock, and Person all confirmed that early settlers burned like the
Indians did) but this is to some extent a moot point since the settlers, by their own accounts, were simply
mimicking what the Indians had done, and, like the Indians, wanted to keep the wetlands open.
Makah tribal members interviewed between 2002 and 2007 claimed that in former times the
wetlands were burned. When asked which wetlands were burned, they could remember only Ts’oo-yuhs
Prairie, which is on the Makah Reservation and was more easily accessible to their ancestors in the late
1800s and early 1900s than the Ozette Prairies proper. Six Makah individuals—Pat Boachup, Greg Colfax,
John Ides, Sadie Johnson, Melissa Peterson, and Gary Ray—along with Kate McCarty, a non-Indian married
to a Makah man, were told by Makah elders that setting fires in Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie was a traditional
practice to enhance bog cranberries and Indian tea, improve hunting, and to keep the forest from encroaching.
Additionally, Helma Ward, a Makah elder interviewed by ethnobotanist Steven Gill (2005) in
the early 1980s, said that the cranberry bogs at Ts’oo-yuhs were burned every ten years.
Table 6. 1895 General Land Offi ce Survey of Township 31 North, Range 16 West
Focusing on the Ozette Prairies
Wetland Annotation
Ahlstrom’s Prairie is located in
portions of sections 25, 26, and 36
of T31NR16W.
Rooses Prairie is located in section
25 of T31NR16W.
In the 1895 survey, while surveying the section line between sections 25 and 26,
the surveyor notes that he enters marsh at 50.60 chains; at 62.80 chains he enters
slashing; at 64.75 chains leaves the slashing and enters a clearing; at 65.30 chains
he passes within a hundred feet of M.J. Boyle’s house; at 67.27 chains he leaves the
clearing; and at 73.16 chains leaves marsh.
The only survey done in this area was the south boundary of the Ozette Indian
Reservation. The transit line for the boundary passed through the narrowest
portion of the prairie complex and the only notations were entering marshy
land at 15.25 chains and leaving marshy land at 29.90 chains.
42

43
Figure 34. 1895 Plat Map. Township 31 North, of Range 16 West of Willamette Meridian, Washington, highlighting: (1) West Prairie burn in relation to Charlie Weberhard’s
(an Ozette Indian) residence (both outlined in green); and (2) M.J. Boyle’s (an Ozette Indian) residence in the southern part of Ahlstrom’s Prairie in relation to the Ozette
Prairies as a whole (outlined in blue).

44
Figure 35. 1895 Plat Map. Township 31 North, of Range 16 West of Willamette Meridian, Washington highlighting burned areas. Note the area burned (in orange) is where
West Prairie is today. West Prairie is located in sections 23 and 26 and its northern portion is located on the Ozette Indian Reservation. The area burned (in yellow) is where
Manny’s Prairie is today. Manny’s Prairie lies on the boundary between townships T31N R15W section 19 and T31N R16W section 24.

45
Figure 36. 1892-1897 Plat Map. Township 31 North, of Range 15 West of Willamette Meridian, Washington highlighting burned areas.
Note the area burned (in yellow) is where Manny’s Prairie is today. The area burned (in orange) is where Sand Point Prairie is today.

Figure 37. Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) on Roose’s Prairie .#480. Photograph by Fred Sharpe, 2007.
Bracken fern grows throughout the Ozette Prairies, and its dead fronds burn readily enough to carry a
fire and keep it burning over a large area (see Figure 37). Indeed, Lars Ahlstrom and Peter Roose were
concerned enough about the fire danger posed by the previous year’s dead bracken fronds that they
would burn them off each year. Myra Vanderhoof (1960) remarked that, “such a practice was necessary
as a means of fire-prevention, for the dead bracken became dangerous tinder after the first warm, sunny
days of spring.”
According to scientific studies, bracken fern is not only well adapted to fire, it promotes fire by
producing a highly inflammable layer of dried fronds every fall (Agee 1993; Frye 1956; USDA Forest Service
1937). In the Pacific Northwest western bracken fern fronds grow to 7 feet, resulting in several tons of
flashy fuel per acre (McCulloch 1942). Fuel loading in areas dominated by bracken fern can be quite high
(McCulloch 1942; Agee and Huff 1987). Brown and Marsen (1976) have developed a formula to estimate
fuel loading using the relationship between fuel loading and the ground cover and height of bracken fern
(Crane 1990).
46

Other researchers have collected data showing that fire was used to expand the wetlands into the
surrounding upland forests. Geographer Andrew Bach and archaeologist Dave Conca (2001) found that
the soils of the transition areas between forest and peatland are modified forest spodosols rather than the
mollisols more typical of grasslands or “prairies.” The modified spodosols indicate that fire was part of
the soil forming or modification process in the wetlands. Bach and Conca (2004:10) conclude:
[T]hree soil types have been identified, two spodols (forest soils) and a histosol (organic
soil). Each soil type has distinctive soil properties, particularly the horizonation.
Each soil strongly suggests a long history of different vegetative cover which produced
the different soil types. The distribution of the soil types does not fully correspond
with the current distribution of vegetation, suggesting that fire or other disturbances
removed the forest cover from the perimenter of the prairie complex. This change in
forest cover has altered the forest soils, resulting in depodzolization—the process of
changing a spodosol into a different soil type.
Figure 38. James Wesseler, a domesticated cranberry grower, on the
Hoko-Ozette Rd., displaying the cranberry label designed by his
father Isaac Tippecanoe Wesseler. Note the Roosevelt elk, a common
visitor of both wild and domesticated cranberry bogs to partake in the
fruits. Photograph taken by Kat Anderson, 2006.
Cultural Purposes for Burning
47
To understand more fully how the Ozette people
used fire to maintain the Ozette Prairies, it is nec-
essary to examine their reasons for doing so.
Improve game habitat. Indian burning of
the open habitat fostered three inter-related goals
related to the hunting of game animals: it facilitated
hunting by increasing visibility and access
to animals; it lured the animals to the open areas
to congregate by encouraging the growth of new
lush vegetation; and it maximized the quality and
quantity of food available to these animals.
James Wesseler, Bud Klock, Emil Person, and
Bob Bowlby all recall that Indian burning en-
hanced hunting on the Ozette Prairies (see
Appendix 4). James Wesseler’s father, Isaac
Tippecanoe Wesseler, who homesteaded out
along the Hoko-Ozette Road near Royal in 1902,
told Jim: “The Indians used to burn off patches in

48
the [Ozette] prairies. They would
burn them off like that and then
the grass would come up and the
deer and elk would come in to
feed and the Indians would hunt”
(James Wesseler pers. comm. 2002)
(see Figure 38).
Bob Bowlby (Jamestown
S’Kallam) whose maternal and
paternal grandparents home-
Figure 39. The home of Judge William Morton Bowlby (Bob Bowlby’s paternal grandfasteaded the western Olympic
ther) on the Beach at Toleak Point 1938. From left to right: Lavin Coe (Quileute), Gene
Jackson (Quileute), William H. Bowlby, Bob Bowlby (Jamestown S”Kallam), Chris Peninsula very early said that
Morgenroth II (Quileute), and Steve Penn (Quileute). Walter Jackson (Quileute) is in the
doorway. William Morton Bowlby, photographer. Courtesy of Bob Bowlby.
“Dad and grandfather knew the
Quileute and Makah well. Both sets
of grandparents and both parents spoke Chinook jargon to the tribes” (pers. comm. 2009). Bowlby was
born at Clallam Bay in 1926 and stated that, “My dad William Henderson Bowlby and my stepdad Clyde
Maneval told of the Indians burning the prairies. The closest was Shuwah. No Beaver Prairie, then Shuwah,
then Forks Prairie, then Quilleute Prairie, then Little Prairie. And those are the ones on that end in
the eastern part. And then there was what we called Ahlstrom’s Prairie up past Ozette Lake and Roose’s
Prairie. The Indians always waited until it was very dry before they burned so it would be probably a
hot day in August [when they burned]. They burned once a year. When they started a fire it would burn
everything that was there. And that was the object to burn everything that was there and keep the trees
off of the prairie and around the edges so that the woods wouldn’t creep in on the elk pasture. And of
course that would be the purpose of burning
the prairie in the first place, so the animalselk
and deer--would have some grass to eat”
(pers. comm. 2003).
Figure 40. Bud Klock, 1993. Photographer unknown. Courtesy of
Vera Klock.
According to Bud Klock who has lived
in Sekiu since 1928: “the Indians used to burn
those [Ozette] prairies every year or every
other year to keep all the brush down, to
keep it open...because it was good hunting
when everything was burned down. After
they would burn those prairies everything

would come up in little green sprouts and that was real good feed for the deer and the elk” (Bud Klock
pers. comm. 2002).
Emil Person (pers. comm. 2006) remembers his father (who moved the family to Royal in 1921)
and other “old-timers” telling him how burning of the Ozette Prairies attracted game animals: “By burn-
ing it off, then the new foliage would come out and then the deer and the elk would come out there and
probably bear too.” According to Emil, the animals would feed on the swamp grass and the moss. “Then
they [the Indians] had a good chance of getting animals because they could surround them and they
couldn’t get away. That’s the way that they would get their meat.”
Enhance productivity of below-ground food plants. Bracken fern rhizomes were a
staple in the diet of all the tribes on the Olympic Peninsula, and we know that the Makah and the Ozette
people gathered them as well. Bracken fern patches in the Ozette Prairies were burned and cultivated for
edible rhizomes, as well as for fiddleheads for food and medicines and fronds for cleaning and serving
fish.
According to Myra Vanderhoof (1960), enhancing the growth of bracken fern was one reason for
burning Ahlstrom’s Prairie: “The Indians burned it yearly to discourage further tree growth.... to foster
the growth of the bracken and the fruitfulness of the evergreen huckleberries, both of which were important
items in their [the Indians’] diet.”
In the mid 1950s archaeologists Stallard and Denman (1955-56) surveyed a large open space
bordering the ocean, located at the foot of the trail which leads to the ocean from Allen’s Bay. They found
a cover of bracken fern which reached a height of seven feet. They correlated this archaeological site with
field notes of Ram Raj Singh, who said that this clearing had been “maintained [by the Indians] to provide
bracken fern as a source of food.”
Bracken fern is common following fire, and in fact, repeated fires favor it (Page 1976; Tryon 1941;
Agee and Huff 1987; Ingram 1931). Most sources agree that bracken fern’s primary fire adaptation is its
deeply buried rhizomes, which sprout vigorously following fires before most competing vegetation is
established (Crane 1990: Skutch 1929). Rhizomes range in depth in the soil from 8 to 30 cm, but may be
as deep as one meter (Crane 1990). Fire benefits bracken fern by eliminating competing plants while it
sprouts profusely from surviving rhizomes (Page 1982). New sprouts are more vigorous following fire,
and in the open habitats created by fire, western bracken fern becomes more fertile, producing far more
spores than it does in the shade (Page 1982; Haeussler and Coates 1986).
49

Enhance productivity of above-ground food plants. Some Makah have distinct mem-
ories of Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie on the Makah reservation being burned specifically to enhance production of
both Indian tea and the many types of berries that grow there (see Appendix 5). According to Melissa
Peterson, Makah, “people who owned the marshes burned the marshes for the cranberry for the health
of the plant to increase yield and also to keep other invasive plants from taking over” (pers. comm. 2007).
Pat Boachup (Makah, pers. comm. 2002) agrees: “People burned in the cranberry marsh [Ts’oo-yuhs] to
promote a better crop of cranberries and Indian tea.”
50
Kate McCarty, a non-
Indian woman married for
many years to a Makah man,
further discusses the importance
of fire to the growth
and well-being of beverage
and food plants (see Figure
41):
There have
been a number
of people here
that talked
about burning
the Ts’oo-yuhs
Figure 41. Kate McCarty. Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007.
Prairie at the
cranberry marsh
so that the trees
wouldn’t come—my father-in-law Jerry McCarty and Minerva Claplanhoo. The
Labrador tea can just keep growing and growing and growing until it gets real leggy.
And all that you have is just a few little leaves on top. But after it’s been burned then
it starts all over again. Its just like pinching flowers off of the chrysanthemum to make
them bush out. And the little cranberry plant—it seemed like when they would burn
them, they would just burn the top part of the sphagnum moss and not down where
the roots are. After a fire it seemed like there were more and then they would get less
and less (pers. comm. 2002).
Lloyd Colfax:
Greg Colfax, Makah, learned about burning of cranberry bogs in Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie from his dad
My dad mentioned that the [Ts’oo-yuhs] prairie was burned yearly or whenever it
was necessary. When the cranberry bogs would get so overgrown then the folks knew
that it was time to do it.... What I was told is that it just gets overgrown and you’ve
got few berries. And so you’ve got to burn it to burn down all the other kinds of
vegetation and plant life that chokes off the cranberries. Once you do that then they’ve
got room to do what they have to do. It [the fire] releases other kinds of fertilizers and

nutrients. And it does something to create the balance to give you a big harvest of
cranberries (pers. comm. 2003).
Sadie Johnson, Makah, learned about burning Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie from both sets of grand-
Figure 42. Sadie Johnson, Makah, on the left, with her daughter Yvonne Wilke, and grandson Corbett.
Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007.
51
parents, all of whom
once lived in the Ozette
village (see Figure 42):
“There was burning of
the land—only the cranberry
marsh. There was
talk about that when I
was young. I remember
them talking about it so
that the cranberries and
the Indian tea would
grow, you know, grow
right” (pers. comm.
2002).
Gary Ray, Makah, (pers.
comm. 2007) learned from Lewis Trettivick that “the Makah used to burn the Ts’oo-yuhs bog to make the
cranberries better.” Trettivick was married to a Makah woman for many years.
The Ozette Prairies were also burned to enhance the growth of cranberries, just as Ts’oo-yuhs
Prairie was. Both wetland areas have tree encroachment problems and both sites have bogs that contain
cranberries and Indian tea. Anthropologist Elizabeth Colson (1941-1944) interviewed Alice Kalappa
(Makah) in the early 1940s about Ozette Settlements and she remembered former burning (see quote in
appendix 3).
Eighty-five-year-old John H. Ides (Makah) reflected on this notion:
“I imagine that they might have had the same thing there at Ozette. Because Ozette is similar to
what the Ts’oo-yuhs Valley is. If Ozette [Prairies] had some [cranberries] it would be the same procedures
of growing.... My father [Perry Ides] said that a long time ago that they used to burn the cranberries for
harvest. They would burn portions of it too, you know, lay hay on there I guess and then burn the cranberries.
And they said that kept cranberries going.... When they burned they burned the whole bog. It
was an ancient method of rejuvenating the earth” (Ides pers. comm. 2006).

We do have some
evidence that the Ozette Prairies
were burned for another kind
of berry. In a newspaper article
published in 1960, Myra Vanderhoof
(1960) wrote that the Indians
burned the Ozette Prairies to encourage
the growth of evergreen
huckleberries.
Keep the wetlands
open. Native people on the
Olympic Peninsula valued wetlands
specifically for their open,
treeless nature. As open habitats, Figure 43. John H. Ides, Makah, and his wife Junette. Photograph by Kat Anderson, 2007.
wetlands served as corridors for
easy travel, offered sites for temporary
camps, and created landscape diversity in a land otherwise swathed in forest. The Makah were
well aware that these environments would disappear unless they were burned, and consultants have
often couched the reasons for burning in terms of maintaining the openness of wetlands.
According to Emil Person (pers. comm. 2006), “another reason that they [the Makah] burned it
[the Ozette Prairies] was to keep the brush from closing in too fast.” Speaking of Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie, Pat
Boachup (Makah, pers. comm. 2002) said: “Another reason to burn was to keep the brush and trees from
growing. Otherwise it would be a loss. The marsh behind the school, unless someone burns it, it will be
history. It is being encroached by trees and shrubs. Unless they’re cut down and burned, they’ll eventually
take over the cranberry marsh just like at Ozette.”
The white settlers who homesteaded on the western Olympic Peninsula understood immediately
the value of wetlands as open habitats, and the wetlands were always the places they chose to settle.
When they became the land’s owners, Lars Ahlstrom and Peter Roose continued burning off the wetlands
in order to keep the forest from reclaiming the open land (see Appendix 3).
Although we have a fairly good idea of why the Ozette people burned the wetlands, we do
not know very much about how they did so—how frequently they burned, the time of year they chose,
or how they realized the different cultural goals of burning. We don’t know if parts of a wetland were
52

urned one way and others a different way. Knowledge of the specifics of burning is not lacking entirely,
however. There are good bases for making some general conclusions and well-founded speculations.
During what season did the Ozette people burn the wetlands? The possibilities narrow down to
summer and fall, because these seasons offer times when drier and warmer weather leaves the vegetation
dry enough to burn. Although some sources (Emil Person, for example) mention summertime burning
(June and July), the bulk of the evidence points to fall as the season for bringing fire to the wetlands.
According to fire ecologist James Agee (pers. comm. 2009):
July and August are the highest months for lightning ignitions. This is not suggestive
that native burning necessarily followed the same pattern. The lightning ignitions
are forest-related and focus on moisture content of fine dead fuels, while the prairie
fires would have depended on partially cured herbaceous fuels, which likely occurred
later than July and August, and the cultural advantage of burning after berry harvest.
Clearly, east winds, which occur at higher frequency in summer and fall, and carry
lower humidity (and sometimes higher velocity) would have been favored times to
burn, and even after September rains an east wind can dry fine fuels in a day or less.
They normally occurred over 3-day periods, which gave natives the opportunity for
short-term planning.
The Makah name for the fall season is qw!aya’tex, a word that means “hard” or “tough,” but
which can be translated to mean “dried-up time” when used in a seasonal context (Waterman 1920:46
vol I.). This conception of the autumn suggests that the Makah thought of it as the time when the vegetation
was at its driest and thus best able to carry a fire. Bud Klock stated that he believed September and
October were the months that the Indians burned the wetlands, and according to several sources this was
also the time of year that Pete Roose did his burning of the wetland (James Wesseler and Bud Klock pers.
comm. 2003). It is reasonable to assume that Roose was following what he knew the Indians had done.
In the historical literature, Albert Reagan (1908:148–149) mentions that the Olympic tribes burned
the bracken fern in the fall to enhance its growth in the spring. In reference to Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie, two
Makah informants mentioned the fall (September and October) as the time when the wetland was set
fire, and another informant, John H. Ides, says the burning occurred when the cranberries were picked—
which corresponds to early fall as well.
Sources vary considerably as to the frequency of burning on the Ozette Prairies. Four sources
(two newspaper accounts, and the testimony of Emil Person, and Bob Bowlby) say that burning in the
Ozette Prairies took place every year. Bud Klock stated every one to three years. With regard to Ts’ooyuhs
Prairie, Kate McCarty said that burning did not take place every year. Greg Colfax said that burning
53

happened “yearly or whenever it was necessary.” John H. Ides stated every one to five years. Gill (1984:5),
who interviewed Makah elder Helma Ward in the 1980s, reported that “[f]ormerly the cranberry marsh at
Tsues [Ts’oo-yuhs] was burned every ten years or so to maintain cranberry production.”
A reasonable way to interpret these varying frequencies is that they are referring to different
localities or goals and may therefore all be accurate. Annual burning, for example, would not make sense
for patches of berries. Scientific studies confirm that berry production in salal and various species of western
huckleberries is generally delayed for at least three to five years after fire (Martin 1979; Nancy Turner
pers. comm. 2007), which points to an ideal burning frequency of once every 5 to 10 years for berry
patches. On the other side of the scale, more frequent burning may well have been necessary for inhibiting
tree encroachment at the periphery of the wetlands or for greening up the forage for Roosevelt elk,
black-tail deer, and black bears in certain areas. It is quite plausible, then, that different parts of the Ozette
Prairies experienced different fire-return intervals, varying from once a year to once every 10 years. In this
regard, the following observation by Emil Person
seems germane:
Figure 44. Emil Person with his grandaughter. Photograph by
Kat Anderson, 2007.
54
“The Indians probably burned portions each year. I
don’t think that they burned the whole prairie
each year. I think that they burned every year, but
they always burned small areas. If you burned the
whole thing off then you wouldn’t have any area
for the deer to come back or the elk to come back to
because it would be all black. If you burned small
areas off you would still have the areas where the
deer could have food and you could still get them”
(pers. comm. 2006).
Limitations of the Interview Data
None of the consultants interviewed witnessed
burning firsthand through direct observation in the
Ozette Prairies and therefore, their knowledge is secondhand. People do not remember everything accurately
and this could lead to error in interpretation. If one person said their relatives or the Indians
burned in coastal wetlands we would probably have some doubt. But, as person after person (both

Indians and non-Indians) comes forward with similar stories and not just in this area, but on Ts’oo-yuhs
Prairie too, there comes a point when we can not ignore it anymore.
Another limitation is that none of the Makah consultants interviewed for this report remembered
burning on the Ozette Prairies, only burning on Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie. This is probably due to the different
fates experienced by the Makah of Neah Bay and the other nearby villages, versus the Makah people of
the Ozette Village. The Makah have maintained cultural traditions, uninterrupted, for the length of time
they have inhabited the northwestern tip of the Olympic Peninsula at Neah Bay. The fact that the Makah
Reservation was established to encompass four of their pre-European contact villages, has helped ensure
cultural continuity. Thus, the passing down of certain customs and oral traditions were not broken. On
the other hand, the Makah at the Ozette Village, were not so fortunate, and while a reservation, the Ozette
Reservation, was established in their traditional territory, the people were forced to relocate early-on and
did not have continuous ties with their Village and the Ozette Prairies through to the present day. Their
interactions with the Ozette Prairies were by-and-large severed over 100 years ago.
The veracity of these oral accounts is strengthened through the process of cross-referencing the
information with other kinds of evidence (Anderson 1996). The newspaper article testimony from Lars
Ahlstrom, himself, who lived on the Ozette Prairie that was named after him, corroborates what four
non-Indians, Charles Keller, Emil Person, Bud Klock, James Wesseler, and one Native American Bob
Bowlby (Jamestown S’Klallam), all long-time residents of the area are saying (see Appendices 3 and 4).
Consistency of the information between regions also substantiates oral accounts. Makah consultants from
the Makah Reservation that were interviewed for this report were raised by parents and grandparents
who had witnessed burning firsthand on the Makah Reservation, specifically on Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie and
this knowledge was transmitted through oral tradition. Thus, there is consistency in information on burning
gathered for the Ozette Prairies and the Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie. This is important information because
some of the same culturally significant plant species occur on both Ts’oo-yuhs and the Ozette Prairies and
are not found readily outside wetlands in Olympic rain forests, but rather restricted to open swamps and
bogs. Bog cranberries, for example, were gathered on both the Ozette Prairies and Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie. A
month in the Makah calendar is named in their honor, suggesting the prominent place they held in the
Makah diet (see Table 2).
While Indian burning at Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie does not automatically mean that the Ozette Prairies
were burned as well, the fact that the same culturally significant plants occur on both sites, both wetlands
are experiencing encroachment by conifers, and knowing of the significance of this habitat type to the
Makah for useful plant resources, points to the likelihood that both wetlands were burned for similar
reasons. Soil studies should be undertaken to characterize both sites with regard to a variety of factors
55

such as parent material, land form, hydrology, aspect, landscape position, plant species, and soil function
to make more concrete comparisons of the two wetlands.
Discussion
It is important to explore alternative explanations for the persistence of the Ozette Prairies.
Lightning fires might have kept them open. However, natural fire in the form of lightning is very rare in
coastal coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest (Gavin et al. 2003; Henderson et al. 1989; Lertzman et
al. 2002), so it is most likely not responsible for keeping lowland openings free of trees such as the Ozette
Prairies. Forests of western redcedar, sitka spruce, and western hemlock burn on average, once every 937
years and the fires tend to be stand-replacing events (Agee 1993). Most of the lightning fires in Olympic
National Park between 1916 and 1975 occurred in the northeasterly half of the Park and most above 1220
m elevation (Pickford et al. 1980). Ecologist Jan Henderson and colleagues (et al. 1989: 38) state that “In
zones 0-3 [ which includes the Sitka Spruce Zone in which the Ozette Prairies lie] there were very few
fires of appreciable size in the last 700 years. Those that have been recognized occur along southerly aspects
mostly at mid-elevations (the thermal belt) and rarely exceed 1000 acres in size.”
There are a number of other possible explanations for the persistence of the Ozette Prairies with-
out tree encroachment until relatively recently. Wind is a major disturbance factor in this area (Agee 1994;
Henderson et al. 1989). Yet, “wind disturbance does not eliminate tree regeneration and tree blow downs
that periodically occur, return to forest rapidly” (David Peter pers. comm. 2009). According to fire ecologist
James Agee (1993:193), while openings in the forest are created through wind disturbance, these areas
provide “both a gap suitable for regeneration and a substrate for tree establishment.” “With the exception
of anthropologically maintained openings, some wetlands, rocky areas, alpine areas, and highly eroded
areas (beaches, sea cliffs, river bars, etc.) forest rapidly grows almost everywhere on the western Olympic
Peninsula” (David Peter pers. comm. 2009).
Smaller-scale perturbations that are connected with heavy rainfall include avalanches, slope
failures, soil creep, and scouring of riverbanks (Jenkins et al. 2002), but these are more expected at higher
elevations, along streams, or on lands with steeper gradients, not in slight depressions in lowland flatssuch
as the Ozette Prairies. Insects and pathogens cause tree mortality on the wetter side of the Peninsula,
but their effects are local, not widespread (Henderson et al. 1989).
Another possible explanation is the presence of infertile soils with poor drainage that create conditions
that favor an herbaceous and shrub vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions
56

(Kulzer et al. 2001). Bogs dominated by Sphagnum, along with fen plants such as sedges (Carex spp.) and
white beakrush (Rhynchospora alba) would be capable of keeping these wetlands open for millennia (Richard
Hebda pers. comm. 2009). Thus, the recent encroachment of the area with conifers could be due to
changes in groundwater levels and alteration of surface water hydrology with the construction of structures,
fences, trails, and plowing the land under the tenure of Lars Ahlstrom and Peter Roose. According
to Hebda (pers. comm. 2009), “We suspect that a water table decline of 10-20 cm over several decades
would be more than enough to cause succession in wetlands.” Further soil studies are needed to evaluate
this hypothesis. According to David Imper (pers. comm. 2009), “Unless drainage channels were built,
these developments are very unlikely to change the hydrology.”
David Peter (pers. comm. 2009) points out that, “Encroachment of trees onto the Ozette Prairies
also might cause a drop in the water table as trees increasingly transpire soil water.” Imper (pers. comm.
2009) explains: “As encroachment begins from islands in the wetland and around the edges, the increase
in transpiration, accumulation of litter and root mass increase radially, exponentially. Even at a low stocking
rate initially at say six inch radial growth per year, can fully close a site in not many years (twenty to
fifty years).”
The Ozette Prairies include wetland areas that might not forest over (Kunze 1989), but they also
contain wetland and non-wetland areas that almost certainly will grow up into forest and they are (R.
Pyle and T. Pyle 2000; observation of the author). The non-wetland open areas at Ozette are probably old
and would have been expected to be forested. So why aren’t they? One explanation might be that Roosevelt
elk grazed and browsed the open wetlands and ecotones, favoring this vegetation, and this disturbance
was frequent and extensive enough to keep the Ozette Prairies and other wetlands open, restricting
or slowing the invasion of woody species (Moral 1985; Skinner 1934). Exclosure studies in the Olympic
rain forest show that cervid herbivory is significant in structuring forest understories. Herbivory decreases
tree, shrub, and fern cover and increases grass cover (Woodward et al. 1994; Schreiner et al. 1996.) Additionally,
the grazing of large flocks of geese and other waterfowl, may have had a lesser role in keeping
the Ozette Prairies open. David Peter (pers. comm. 2009) argues that “Perhaps this would work if there
was already an opening--but then how did that opening form? If there was not already an opening, ungulate
browse might alter the understory, but leave the overstory more or less intact.” Furthermore, when
the natural predators were in place on the Olympic Peninsula, particularly gray wolves (Canis lupus), the
elk probably frequented openings for shorter periods of time, moving more often because their natural
predators would keep them moving.
This earlier grazing regime may have been altered with overharvest by non-Indians visiting and/
or settling on the Olympic Peninsula, reducing herd size, and thus leading to a respite--enabling conifers
57

to advance onto the Ozette Prairies. In a newspaper article published February 15, 1940, Jack Henson
reported: that “Keller said that from the best information he can gather, at one time there were many
hundreds of elk around the [Ozette] lake. There were so many that instead of the dense underbrush that
is there now the vegetation had been browsed down like it is on the upper Hoh river. About fifty years
ago [circa 1890] hide and teeth hunters entered the district and killed the animals off. The hides were
shipped out of the country by sailing schooners from a trading post at the mouth of the Ozette river. The
hides were sent to the market to be tanned for leather. The animals were slaughtered like the buffalo of
the plains. To prove this contention Keller said that the late Walter Ferguson, who half a century ago operated
a trading post at the mouth of the Ozette river, told him he saw a band of 250 elk in Swan Bay, Lake
Ozette, one day and killed 70 of them that day. Early in the nineties there was a large influx of homesteaders
into the area and they also killed many of the elk for food and for the hides.”
Another explanation might be that the climate is changing becoming warmer and drier over the
last century due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Geographer Cathy Whitlock (pers. comm. 2009)
says, “Climate change may have provided the backdrop that enable colonization and rapid growth of
seedlings in the absence of anthropogenic fires.” Studies are needed to document changes in temperature
and precipitation over the last one hundred years.
Indian Use and Burning of the Ozette Prairies
A large section of the report was devoted to documenting the Makah historical use of the Ozette
Prairies. It is significant that the Ozette, Ts’oo-yuhs, and Wuh-uhch’ wetlands are all situated at or near
Makah village sites. These findings are corroborated by the documentation of the cultural importance
and key locations of other prairies and wetlands to other tribes on the western Olympic Peninsula such
as the Quileute (Powell 2002) (see Appendix 6). Furthermore, the Makah have access to large bays (Neah
and Mukkaw Bay) and the Ozette river with its abundant marine and fresh water resources. Although
considerable evidence for use has been assembled, there are large gaps in our knowledge of the cultural
significance of the Ozette Prairies to the indigenous people. We are at a disadvantage because the Ozette
people were forced to move so early from their homeland and relocate to the Makah Reservation or other
areas. Furthermore, no archaeology has been done on the Ozette Prairies or other wetlands within the
Ozette traditional territory (Dave Conca pers. comm. 2007). Without this work, it has not been possible
to assemble a complete regional picture of how the Ozette Prairies fit into the annual resource utilization
scheme of the Ozette people.
Critics of the scenario that Indians burned the wetlands often claim that the wetlands were too
wet to be easily ignited or to carry a fire. But the Makah had the capability to fell individual conifers with
58

fire and had the technology to overcome the ignition problem, and in the right kind of weather the veg-
etation itself would have taken care of the carrying problem (see sidebar below). All tribes on the Olympic
Peninsula had knowledge of pitchwood, resin-rich wood that was effective kindling for starting fires
and which could be used to make torches for keeping fires burning, even in wet weather.
Felling Trees and Pitchwood
The Indians had the capability to fell trees with fire, and large cedars felled in this manner by the
Indians were often made into canoes. Their unique method of felling trees was through burning a cut
with hot coals (Magnusson 2000). Immigrants at Ozette Lake and surrounding area followed the Indian
method of felling tees. Anders Nylund, of Finnish descent, for example, who came to the Ozette area
in 1890, cleared 15 acres by cutting holes at the tree base and dropping in live coals. Bellows were used
to keep the fire burning long enough to fall the tree. Nylund planted a fruit orchard, berries, and a big
vegetable garden on the cleared land (Petroff 1981). Magnusson (2000:14) refers to the technique of felling
trees with fire by both Ozette Indians and Scandanavians as “slash/burning.” According to Magnusson
(2000:15) while “the tradition of clearing forest through slash/burning was an ancient practice in Northern
Europe, which is commonly referred to as svedjebruk... there do not seem to be any Scandinavian
precedents for felling trees through burning a cut (with hot coals) as was done by Native-Americans in
the Pacific Northwest” pointing to their adoption of this technique from the Ozette Indians.
The Makah knew the properties of all the woods of their territory and described the fuelwood
properties given to spruce trees in their mythology: “To one they said, you are old, and your heart is dry,
you will make good kindling wood, for your grease has turned hard and will make pitch (kluk-ait-a-biss),
your name is Do-ho-bupt, and you shall be the spruce tree, which when it grows old will always make
dry wood” (Swan 1964:65).
Spruce pitchwood provided light for ceremonies conducted in lodges, was used for duck hunt-
ing at night, and could be used as a weapon in warfare (Swan 1964:67). Swan describes its use in hunting
sea fowl on foggy nights: “A fire of pitch-wood is built on a platform at one end of the canoe, and by the
glare of its light, which seems to blind or attract the birds, the Indian is enabled to get into the midst of a
flock, and spear them at his leisure” (Swan 1964:25). On September 19, 1861, James Swan relays the use of
such pitchwood to light Makah war canoes at night and to be used to set fire to the houses of the Elwhas
as part of their plan to destroy the village: “Each canoe contained a number of torches made of fagots of
pitchwood, split fine and tied to poles four to five feet long.”
The Makah were so skilled at making and using fire that they used spruce pitchwood in hair seal
hunting in pre-contact times, as Maria Parker Pascua (1991:48) vividly describes: “Hair seals live in caves
59

near Ozette; their meat and oil are excellent. A canoe would be dashed in these surf-charged caves, so
hunters must swim in. To light the way, they twist their long hair into a topknot and insert spruce sticks,
which they ignite like candles with a glowing coal carried in a hinged shell. The light blinds the seals as
the hunters climb up the rocky perches and strike them with clubs carved in their image.”
It has already been suggested that the kind of burning practiced by the Ozette people did not
have adverse effects on many plant species and, in fact, promoted their productivity. Many wetland
plants, for example, have deep rhizomes that are not damaged by low-intensity fires and resprout vigorously
after above-ground portions of the plant are burned. This is particularly true for bog cranberries,
a plant the Ozette targeted in their burning of the wetlands (Matthews 1992b; Flinn and Wein 1977).
After a fire, bog cranberries utilize the nutrients in ash, contributing to their rapid growth. Experiments
show that bog cranberry becomes more abundant in terms of numbers of stems, flowers, and fruits with
repeated fires (Flinn 1980; Flinn and Wein 1977).
Indian tea is similarly tolerant of fire. It responds to light fires by resprouting from stems. If com-
pletely top-killed, the plant regenerates from root crowns and rhizomes (Gucker 2006; Calmes and Zasada
1982; Parminter 1984). Regeneration is typically rapid (Scotter 1972). Indian tea can survive even severe
fires because the rhizomes lie as deep as 50 cm in the soil (Flinn and Wein 1977; Flinn 1980).
Conclusions
1. Anthropologist Colson’s unpublished field notes, findings from Native American interviews conducted
between 2002 and 2007, the historic literature on the Makah, and newspaper articles support the conclusion
of historical subsistence use of the Ozette Prairies by the Makah.
2. Historical and physical evidence suggest that the Ozette people burned the Ozette Prairies periodically.
Looking at all the lines of evidence together, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that fire was indeed
wielded as a management tool on the wetlands to prevent the encroachment of trees, encourage the
growth of useful plants, and maintain the wetlands as desirable habitat for large mammals. The Ozette
people valued the wetlands highly and knew that they had to be cared for if they were to continue serving
as an important foundation of the people’s economy and culture.
3. The Ozette Prairies are probably of natural origin determined by topography, soils, and climate, main-
tained by aboriginal burning and to some extent elk grazing.
60

4. The areas surrounding the true wetlands likely were created by Indian burning-- expanding the size
of the Ozette Prairies. With repeat fire, the clearings eventually went beyond the saturated conditions to
include surrounding upland soils--the areas where the trees are actively invading today. These openings
were probably kept open with the non-Indian ranching and burning activities of Lars Ahlstrom and Peter
Roose.
5. The Ozette Prairies are a product of both natural and cultural forces. Non-anthropogenic and anthropogenic
factors have been at work during the Holocene to give us the high biodiversity found there today.
The Ozette Prairies best fit the National Park Service category of ethnographic landscape, which is defined
as “a site, structure, object, landscape, or natural resource feature assigned traditional legendary, religious,
subsistence, or other significance in the cultural system of a group traditionally associated with it”
(National Park Service 2001).
Management Options for the Ozette Prairies
There are a variety of options for the management of the Ozette Prairies such as mechanical tree
removal, the reintroduction of fire, and a hands-off approach—letting nature take its course. What is
needed is an accounting of all of the available management options and the weighing of environmental,
cultural, and economic advantages and disadvantages for each option. Additional scientific research will
be required.
This section discusses the upsides and downsides of one of these options—to reintroduce burning
to control the encroachment of woody vegetation. Reintroducing burning is complex and controversial.
While Indian burning may have enhanced culturally significant plant species in the past such as bog cranberry
and Indian tea and these plants can survive low to moderate intensity burns (http://www.fs.fed.
us/database/feis), it is unknown how the reintroduction of burning may affect Plant Species of Concern
listed in this report—given the current climate, recent land use history, and the presence of non-native
plant species. The presence of non-native plants in the current vegetation is a major consideration to park
managers when planning fire prescriptions. The presence of invasive plants may change the dynamics of
the vegetation that develops after burning and in some cases may increase the invasion of alien plant species
(Graber 2003). The use of prescribed fire is also restricted by air quality regulations and atmospheric
and fuel conditions (Larry Nickey pers. comm. 2009; Graber 2003).
Botanists, ecologists, and geographers have argued that if modern climate change is leading to
a warmer/drier climate, then these wetlands may experience altered hydroperiods that are unable to
61

support their existing flora or parts of it (Clayton Antieau pers. comm. 2009; Graber 2003; Whitlock 1992).
Ecologist David Graber (2003:264) says that “moreover, applications of previously benign or positive
management practices, such as the relatively light and local burning programs Native Americans practiced
for many years...now may produce undesirable, less ‘natural’ outcomes, or may simply be inadequate
to mitigate anthropogenic stressors.”
It is unknown how the Makah copper and the Ozette skipper may respond to fire. The ecological
literature demonstrates that using fire to maintain prairie and wetland habitat for rare and endangered
butterflies can be either beneficial or detrimental to the populations of the insects (Black et al. 2009; Swengel
1996; Schultz and Crone 1998; Panzer 2002). We don’t know enough about these particular butterflies,
however, to assign them to either category.
Butterfly expert Robert Michael Pyle is against the reintroduction of fire in the Ozette Prairies, but
he recognizes the importance of open habitat for the welfare of the butterflies and recommends mechani-
cal removal of the trees:
Although major fire scars on the south sides of the large ‘cypress-like’ hemlocks
in S. Ahlstrom’s Prairie show that fire has been an ecological feature of the area, we
recommend against employing fire to reduce biomass on the Ozette Prairies. A large
body of evidence is building that indicates fire is hostile to butterfly populations unless
a large area of adjacent habitat remains unburned to permit refuge and recolonization.
The gentian, the violets, the copper, the skippers, and their host plants, bog cranberry
and grasses, will all be better served through small tree cutting than by fire, which
could extirpate them. On the other hand, fire at Roose’s homestead appears to represent
no threat, unless it escapes onto Roose’s Bog (R. Pyle and T. Pyle 2000).
Fire ecologist James Agee (pers. comm. 2009) says that:
Another alternative to consider in active management of the Ozette Prairies is
to mechanically remove the trees and then reintroduce fire to portions of the prairies
every few years. This should mitigate the butterfly impact and in the long run increase
habitat for them.
Bog ecologist Richard Hebda states:
There are multiple factors involved with tree encroachment on the Ozette Prairies
and yes absence of fire has likely played a role and grazing changes too. My recommendation
would be to do some limited experimental fires at the margins of one of the
wet areas and see what happens. Fire can have negative effects on wetlands increasing
nutrient fluxes, reducing rate of peat formation, especially in Sphagnum areas,
perhaps changing hydrology in the wetland itself so caution is warranted. Cutting
out the trees may also be an effective approach if the tree cover is the key element of the
hydrological processes.
62

The Makah are in favor of the reintroduction of burning to the Ozette Prairies. Ben Johnson, Jr.
(2006), former Chairman of the Makah Tribal Council, addressed this action in his comments on the Draft
General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Olympic National Park:
Cultural landscape definitions seem to exclude prehistoric landscape features.
Prehistoric features such as the Ozette prairies are being lost due to the conflict with
wilderness designation and management. These prairies are important cultural
resources as they provide a source of medicinal plants. Limitations on fire use prevent
the long-term maintenance of these cultural landscapes.
The restoration of coastal wetlands in other regions has met with some success. New Lake Fen
in coastal Oregon has been burned and the shore pines girdled with encouraging initial results (Christy
2005:16). Richard Hebda (pers. comm. 2009) says: “Our work at Burns Bog is all about doing in the trees.
We are raising the water table and increasing the hydroperiod by damming peripheral and internal
drainage ditches in order to kill or reduce the growth of pine and encourage growth of Sphagnum. We are
still trying to understand the basic processes” (see Howie et al. 2009).
The story of the Ozette Prairies and their former indigenous use and management is an important
story to be told to park visitors. Conservation biology textbooks that highlight indigenous conservation
strategies, for the most part, only use examples from locations other than the United States (Groom et
al. 2006). Ecology textbooks that discuss cooperative relationships in nature between humans and plants
and/or other animals such as mutualism, feature domestication as the main embodiment of that interaction
(Townsend et al. 2008). The Ozette Prairies are an example of places where rich biodiversity, beauty,
and human use all co-existed for centuries or millennia. The Ozette people belonged to the Ozette Prairies,
and so even now, more than 100 years after the establishment of the Ozette and Makah Reservations,
the wetlands can help us understand how it is possible for humans to fit within nature.
63

References
Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Washington, D.C., Island Press.
________. 1994. An analysis of catastrophic forest disturbance on the Olympic Peninsula. Unpublished
report prepared for Rayonier Inc. Hoquiam, Washington.
Agee, J.K. and M.H. Huff. 1987. Fuel succession in a western hemlock/Douglas-fir forest. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research 17:697-704.
Alcorn, R.L. 1977. Pioneers settle at Lake Ozette in 1895:Tacoman, then Girl, recalls early days. December.
The Tacoma News Tribune and Sunday Ledger.
Alden, P., A. Gregoret, R. Keen, D. Mathews, E.A. Oches, D. Paulson, R. Sundstrom, and W.B. Zomlefer.
1998. National Audubon Society Field Guide to the Pacific Northwest. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Anderson, M.K. 1996. Tending the wilderness. Restoration and Management Notes 14(2):154-66.
____________. 2002-2007. Unpublished field notes and transcripts in the author’s possession.
____________. 2005. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California’s
Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Andrade, M.J. n.d. Quileute ethnology notes. American Philosphical Society Library, Philadelphia.
Anonymous 1932. Ahlstrom’s pioneer home on Cape Alaya [sic] most western in continental U.S.; Keller
is most western postmaster. July 28. The Tacoma News Tribune.
Anonymous, 1953. Prairies kept cleared by Indians. Port Angeles Evening News November 28.
Atwater, B.F. et al. 2005. The Orphan Tsunami of 1700: Japanese Clues to a Parent Earthquake in North
America. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. in association with University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Bach, A. and D. Conca. 2001. Soil Influences on the Existence of the Ozette Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s Prairies,
Olympic National Park, Washington. Report to Olympic National Park.
___________________. 2004. Draft Report: Natural History of the Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s Prairies, Olympic
National Park, Washington.
Bertelson, E.B. 1948. The man farthest west in continental U.S. The Seattle Times. Sunday August 8. Magazine
Section.
Black, S.H., C. Mazzacano, and L. Lauvray. 2009. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.
Forest Service: Mardon Skipper Survey of Coon Mountain Burn Site Late May and Early June 2009.
Blinman, E. 1980. Stratigraphy and depositional environment. Pages 64-68 In Hoko River: A 2,500 Year
Old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast of North America. D.R. Croes and E. Blinman (eds.). Laboratory
of Anthropology Reports of Investigations 58, Hoko River Archaeological Project Contributions 1,
Washington State University, Pullman.
Bowcutt, F. 2007. Unpublished Botanical Field Notes of Ahlstrom’s and Roose’s Prairies.
Boyd, R. 1990. Demographic History, 1774-1874. Pages 135-148 In: Handbook of North American Indians
64

Volume 7 Northwest Coast. Wayne Suttles Volume Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
_______. 1999a. Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis: Oregon State University
Press.
_______. 1999b. The Coming of the Spirit of Pestilence: Introduced Infectious Diseases and Population
Decline among Northwest Coast Indians, 1774-1874. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Brown, J.K., and M.A. Marsden 1976. Estimating Fuel Weights of Grasses, Forbs, and Small Woody Plants.
Res. Note INT-210. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment
Station. Ogden, Utah.
____________. 1991. Climate change and the origin of old-growth Douglas-fir forests in Puget Sound lowland.
Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, General Technical
Report PNW-GTR-285. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.
Buckingham, N.M. 1976-1977. Port Angeles and Ozette Unpublished Plant List. Olympic National Park.
____________. 1993. Flora of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Unpublished List. Olympic National
Park.
Buckingham, N.M., E.G. Schreiner, T.N. Kaye, J.E. Burger, and E.L. Tisch. 1995. Flora of the Olympic Peninsula.
Northwest Interpretive Association and the Washington Native Plant Society. Seattle, WA.
Cajander, A.K. 1913. Studien über die Moore Finnlands. Acta Forestalia Fennica 2:1-208.
Calmes, M.A. and J.C. Zasada. 1982. Some reproductive traits of four shrub species in the black spruce
forest type of Alaska. Canadian Field-Naturalist 96(1):35-40.
Christy, J.A. 2005. Sphagnum Fens on the Oregon Coast: Diminishing Habitat and Need for Management.
Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1 Portland, Oregon.
Collins, C.C. 1996. Subsistence and survival: the Makah Indian Reservation, 1855-1933. Pacific Northwest
Quarterly. 87(4):180-193.
Colson, E.F. 1941-1944. Abstract field notes in the possession of the Makah Cultural and Research Center.
_________. 1953. The Makah Indians: A Study of an Indian Tribe in Modern American Society. University
of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.
Conca, D.J. 2000. Archaeological Investigations at Site 45-CA-432: Reevaluating Mid-Holocene Land Use
on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Master’s Thesis. Western Washington University.
Crane, M.F. 1990. Pteridium aquilinum. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
Croes, D.R. 1977. Basketry from the Ozette Village Archaeological Site: A Technological, Functional and
Comparative Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. Washington State University. Pullman.
__________. 1980. Cordage From the Ozette Village Archaeological Site: A Technological, Functional, and
Comparative Study. Laboratory of Archaeology and History. Washington State University, Pullman. Project
Reports 9.
65

Croes, D.R. and E. Blinman. 1980. Hoko River: A 2500 Year old Fishing Camp on the Northwest Coast
of North America. Hoko River Archaeological Project Contribution No. 1. Washington State University
Laboratory of Anthropology Reports of Investigations No. 58.
Curtis, E.S. 1913. The North American Indian: The Indians of the United States, the Dominion of Canada,
and Alaska. Volume 9. Reprinted by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York, N.Y.
Densmore, F. 1939. Nootka and Quileute music. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology
Bulletin 124. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
DePuydt, R.T. 1994. Part IV: Cultural implications of avifaunal remains recovered from the Ozette site.
Pages 197-303 In: Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports. Volume II: Fauna. S.R. Samuels (ed.).
Department of Anthropology Reports of Investigations 66. Washington State University, Pullman, and
National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
Deur, D. and N. Turner. 2005. Introduction: reassessing indigenous resource management, reassessing th
history of an idea. Pages 3-36 In: Keeping It Living: Traditions of Plant Use and Cultivation on the Northwest
Coast of North America. D. Deur and N.J. Turner (eds.). University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Douglas, W.O. 1964. The last frontier in a dark forest. Pages 176-190 In: A Vanishing America; the Life and
Times of the Small Town. T.C. Wheeler and H. Carter (eds.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, New
York.
Egan, D. and E.A. Howell. 2001. The Historical Ecology Handbook: A Restorationist’s Guide to Reference
Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Erikson, P.P, H. Ward, and K. Wacchendorf. 2002. Voices of a Thousand People: The Makah Cultural and
Research Center. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Evans, I. Nylund. n.d. Ozette pioneers had housing shortage too; whole family worked at building new
home. Port Angeles Evening News. Lake Ozette file. Olympic National Park Archives.
Fish, H.U. 1983. Tracks, Trails, and Tales in Clallam County, State of Washington. Self-published. Port
Angeles, Washington.
Flinn, M.A. 1980. Heat Penetration and Early Postfire Regeneration of some Understory Species in the
Acadian Forest. Master’s Thesis. University of New Brunswick. Halifax, NB.
Flinn, M.A. and R.W. Wein. 1977. Depth of underground plant organs and theoretical survival during fire.
Canadian Journal of Botany 55:2550-2554.
Frye, T.C. 1956. Ferns of the Northwest. Binford & Mort, Publishers, Portland, Oregon.
Gavin, D.G. L.B. Brubaker, and K.P. Lertzman. 2003. Holocene fire history of a coastal temperate rain forest
based on soil charcoal radiocarbon dates. Ecology 84(1):186-201.
Gill, S. 1983. Plant Utilization by the Makah and Ozette People, Olympic Peninsula, Washington.
______. 1984. Ethnobotany of the Makah People, Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Makah Language Program,
Neah Bay, Washington and Marion Ownbey Herbarium Wasington State University, Pullman, WA.
______. 2005. Plant utilization by the Makah and Ozette People, Ozette Peninsula, Washington. Pages
337-546 In: Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports Volume III. Ethnobotany and Wood Technology.
D.L. Whelchel (ed.). WSU Department of Anthropology Reports of Investigations 68. national Park
66

Service, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
Goble, D.D. and P.W. Hirt. (ed.). 1999. Northwest Lands, Northwest Peoples: Reading in Environmental
History. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Graber, D.M. 2003. Facing a new ecosystem management paradigm for national parks. Ecological Restoration
21(4):264-277.
Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, C.R. Carroll and Contributors. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology. Third
Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA.
Gunther, E. 1871-1981. Erna Gunther Papers. Record Group No: 19.26.0614. Special Collections, University
of Washington, Libraries. Seattle, WA.
__________1936. A preliminary report on the zoological knowledge of the Makah. Pages 105-118 In: Essays
in Anthropology Presented to Alfred Louis Kroeber in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday. Books for
Libraries Press, Inc. Freeport, New York.
__________. 1973. Ethnobotany of Western Washington: The Knowledge and Use of Indigenous Plants by
Native Americans. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Gutchewsky, M. 2004. Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction of the Ozette Prairies Through the Analyses of
Peatland Cores, Olympic National Park, Washington. Master’s Thesis. Department of Geography. Western
Washington University, Bellingham.
Haeussler, S. and D. Coates. 1986. Autecological Characteristics of Selected Species that Compete with
Conifers in British Columbia: A Literature Review. Land Management Report No. 33. Ministry of Forests,
Information Services Branch, Victoria, BC.
Harbison, D.E., J. Fishback, an O.D. Stanton. 1939. Reconnaissance survey of the Makah Reservation
Washington. Record Group No. 75. BIA Taholah Indian Agency. Taholah, WA. Dec. File. Corr. 1926-1950,
919-921 Hunting and fishing box 152: ”919.0 Agriculture (Reconnaisance) TC-BIA, 1939.” National Archives
Pacific NW Region. Seattle, WA.
Haugland, H. 1946. Lars Ahlstrom home, three miles west of Lake Ozette, farthest west in country. Port
Angeles Evening News. September 10.
Hebda, R.J., K. Gustavson, K. Golinski, A.M. Calder. 2000. Burns Bog Ecosystem Review Synthesis Report.
Prepared by Environmental Assessment Office, Province of British Columbia.
Henderson, J.A., D.H. Peter, R.D. Lesher, and D.C. Shaw. 1989. Forested Plant Associations of the Olympic
National Forest. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region R6 Ecol Technical Paper 001-88.
Hensen, J. n.d. Great variety of frontier skills. Newspaper clipping from unidentified newspaper.
________. 1940. Great elk herds once kept Lake Ozette area free of underbrush. Port Angeles Evening
News. February 15.
________. 1960. Final rites held for pioneer resident of ‘westernmost’ area. Port Angeles Evening News.
March 16.
Holyoke, B. 2003. Letter to Park Anthropologist Jacilee Wray regarding acquistion of Ahlstrom’s and
Roose’s Prairies by the National Park Service.
67

Howie, S.A., P.H. Whitfield, R.J. Hebda, T.G. Munson, R.A. Dakin, and J.K. Jeglum. 2009. Water table and
vegetation response to ditch blocking restoration of a raised bog in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian
Water Resource Journal 34:381-392.
Huelsbeck, D.R. 1994a. Part II: Mammals and fish in the subsistence economy of Ozette. Pages 18-91 In:
Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports. Volume II: Fauna. S.R. Samuels (ed.). Department of
Anthropology Reports of Investigations 66. Washington State University, Pullman, and National Park
Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
_____________. 1994b. Part V. The utilization of whales at Ozette. Pages 265-304 In: Ozette Archaeological
Project Research Reports. Volume II: Fauna. S.R. Samuels (ed.). Department of Anthropology Reports
of Investigations 66. Washington State University, Pullman, and National Park Service, Pacific Northwest
Regional Office, Seattle.
Huelsbeck, D.R. and G.C. Wessen. 1994. Part I: Twenty-five years of faunal analysis at Ozette. Pages 1-15
In: Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports. Volume II: Fauna. S.R. Samuels (ed.). Department of
Anthropology Reports of Investigations 66. Washington State University, Pullman, and National Park
Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
Hult, R.E. 1956. The puzzle of the Ozette Indians. The Seattle Times. April 29.
________. 1954. The Untamed Olympics. Portland, Oregon: Binford & Mort.
Ingram, D.C. 1931. Vegetative changes and grazing use on Douglas-fir cut-over land. Journal of Agricultural
Research 43(5):387-417.
Jenkins, K., A. Woodward, and E. Schreiner. 2002. A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in
Olympic National Park: Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome. Forest and Rangeland Ecosystems
Science Center Olympic Field Station. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior.
Johnson, B. 2006. Letter to Carla McConnell regarding comments on the Draft General Management Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement for Olympic National Park in Washington. Dated December 20th,
2006.
Keller, C. 1941. Letter to Superintendent Preston Macy, Olympic National Park. April 25. Archaeology—
Indians—General File 740-02.4. Olympic National Park Archives.
Kulzer, L., S. Luchessa, S. Cooke, R. Errington, F. Weinmann. 2001. Characteristics of the Low-elevation
Sphagnum-dominated Peatlands of Western Washington: A Community Profile.
Kunze, L.M. 1989. Unpublished Field Evaluation Forms on file with the Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, Washington.
__________. 1994. Preliminary Classification of Native, Low Elevation, Freshwater Wetland Vegetation
in Western Washington. Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Olympia, Washington.
Lenz, L. and P. Cereghino. 2002. Survey for Rare Plants: Bach Research Soil Sample Sites--Ozette. Unpublished
Report. Olympic National Park Archives.
Lertzman, K., D. Gavin, D. Hallett, L. Brubaker, D. Lepofsky, and R. Mathewes. 2002. Long-term fire regime
estimated from soil charcoal in coastal temperate rainforests. Conservation Ecology 6(2).
Macy, P.P. 1937. Letter to O.A. Tomlinson, Superintendent, Mount Rainier National Park dated April 27.
Olympic National Park Archives.
68

_____________. 1941. Memorandum to the Director of the National Park Service. May 27. Archaeology—
Indians—General File 740-02.4. Olympic National Park Archives.
Magnusson, b.B. 2000. Observations on the Material Culture of the Scandinavian Immigrant Settlement at
Lake Ozette and Royal (1880-1910). Unpublished report. Olympic National Park Archives.
Martin, P.A.E. 1979. Productivity and Taxonomy of the Vaccinium globulare, V. membranaceum complex in
western Montana. Master’s Thesis. University of Montana. Missoula, MT.
Matthews, R.F. 1992a. Vaccinium uliginosum. In: fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
____________. 1992b. Vaccinium oxycoccos. In: fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/
Mauger, J.E. 1991. Shed-roof houses at Ozette and in a regional perspective. Part II. Pages 29-169 In:
Samuels, S.R. (ed.). 1991. Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports: Volume I, House Structure and
Floor Midden. Reports of Investigations 63. Department of anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, and National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
McCrone, J. 2000. Fire up. New Scientist 166(2239):30-34.
McCulloch, W.F. 1942. The role of bracken fern in Douglas-fir regeneration. Ecology 23:484-485.
Moral, R. del. 1985. Succession on abandoned homesteads in the Queets River Valley, Olympic National
Park, Washington. Unpublished report prepared under Purchase Order No. PX-9000-5-0464 to the National
Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
National Park Service. 2001. Cultural Resource Management Guildeline, NPS-28. www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm.
Newcombe, C.F. (ed.). 1923. Menzies’ Journal of Vancouver’s Voyage April to October 1792. Archives of
British Columbia Memoir No. V. Authority of the Legislative Assembly, Victoria, B.C.
Page, C.N. 1976. The taxonomy and phytogeography of bracken--a review. Botanical Journal of the Linnean
Society 73:1-34.
__________.1982. The history and spread of bracken in Britain. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
81(B):3-10.
__________. 1986. The strategies of bracken as a permanent ecological opportunist. Pages 173-181 In:
Bracken: Ecology, Land Use and Control Technology. July 1-July 5, 1985. R.T. Smith and J.A. Taylor (eds.).
Lancs: The Parthenon Publishing Group Limited. Leeds, England.
Panzer, R. 2002. Compatibility of prescribed burning with the conservation of insects in small, isolated
prairie reserves. Conservation Biology 16(5): 1296-1307.
Parminter, J. 1984. Fire-ecological Relationships for the Biogeoclimatic Zones of the Northern Portion of
the Mackenzie Timber Supply Area Summary Report. Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbia,
Victoria, BC.
Parratt, S. 2009. Gods & Goblins: A Field Guide to Place Names of Olympic National Park. Edited and
69

expanded by G. Peterson and G. Peterson Schaad. Poseidon Peak Publishing. Forks, WA.
Pascua, M. Parker. 1991. A Makah village in 1491: Ozette. National Geographic. 180(4):38-53. October.
Peterson, R.T. 1992. Forward. Pages xiii-xvi In: Handbook for Butterfly Watchers. R.M. Pyle (author).
Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, Mass.
Petroff, M. 1981. They followed a dream to Ozette. Forks Forum-Peninsula Herald and Sequim Press. July
8-9.
Pickford, S.G., G. R. Fahnestock, and R. Ottmar. 1980. Weather, fuel, and lightning fires in Olympic National
Park. Northwest Science 54(2):92-105.
Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon (eds.) 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon, British
Columbia & Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Powell, J.V. 2002. Quileute Exploitation and Maintenance of Prairies in Traditional Times. Unpublished
Report based on published and archival sources and ethnographic notes recorded by the author between
1968 and the present at LaPush and Lower Hoh River, Washington.
Pyle, R.M. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia: A Field Guide to All the Species of Washinton, Oregon, and
Surrounding Territories. Seattle Audubon Society. Seattle, WA.
Pyle, R.M. and T.L. Pyle. 2000. Final Report: Oregon Silverspot Survey, Ozette Prairies, Olympic National
Park. Unpublished.
____________________. 2001. Final Report: Oregon Silverspot Survey, Ozette Prairies, Olympic National
Park Second Summer’s Work.
Ramsden, K.H. 2004. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Recent Tree Encroachment on the Ozette Prairies,
Olympic National Park, Washington. Master of Science. Western Washington University.
Reagan, A.B. 1908. Some notes on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Transactions of the Kansas Academy
of Science 22:231-238.
Rigg, G.B. 1925. Some Sphagnum bogs of the North Pacific Coast of America. Ecology 6(3):260-278.
________. 1940. The development of Sphagnum bogs in North America. Botanical Review 6(12):666-693.
________. 1958. Peat Resources of Washington. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology
Bulletin 44. State Printing Plant. Olympia, WA.
Samuels, S.R. (ed.). 1991. Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports: Volume I, House Structure and
Floor Midden. Reports of Investigations 63. Department of anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, and National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
___________. 1994. Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports. Volume II: Fauna. Department of
Anthropology Reports of Investigations 66. Washington State University, Pullman, and National Park
Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
Samuels, S.R. and R.D. Daugherty. 1991. Introduction to the Ozette Archaeological Project. Pages 1-27 In:
Samuels, S.R. (ed.). 1991. Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports: Volume I, House Structure and
Floor Midden. Reports of Investigations 63. Department of anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, and National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
70

Schreiner, E.G., K.A. Kreuger, P.J. Happe, and D.B. Houston. 1996. Understory patch dynamics and ungulate
herbivory in old-growth forests of Olympic National Park, Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 26:255-265.
Schultz, C.B. and E.E. Crone. 1998. Burning prairie to restore butterfly habitat: a modeling approach to
management tradeoffs for the fender’s blue. Restoration Ecology 6(3):244-252.
Scotter, G.W. 1972. Fire as an ecological factor in boreal forest ecosystems of Canada. Pages 15-25 In: Fire
in the Environment. Symposium Proceedings May 1-5, 1972. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Denver, CO. FS-276.
Singh, R.R. P. 1966. Aboriginal Economic System of the Olympic Peninsula Indians, Western Washington.
Sacramento Anthropological Society, California State University, Sacramento.
Skinner, M.P. 1934. Unpublished report on Roosevelt elk, Olympic Peninsula to the Committee on the
Olympic Peninsula of the Boone and Crockett Club. Box 12. Washington State Archives, Olympia, WA.
Skutch, A.F. 1929. Early stages of plant succession following forest fires. Ecology 10(2): 177-190.
Stallard, B. and Denman. circa 1955-1956. An Archaeological Site Survey on the Coast of Western Washington.
Stallard and Denman Archives transferred to Olympic National Park from the Burke Museum in
Seattle, WA.
Swan, J.G. 1859-1866. James Gilchrist Swan Papers. Daily Journals. Accession No. 1703-001. Special Collections,
University of Washington Libraries, Seattle, Washington.
_________. 1964. The Indians of Cape Flattery: At the Entrance to the Strait of Fuca, Washington Territory.
Facsimile Reproduction of the 1868 publication. Shorey Book Store, Seattle, Washington.
__________. 1971. Almost out of the World: Scenes from Washington Territory. Washington State Historical
Scoeity, Tacoma, Washington.
Schultz, C.B. and E.E. Crone. 1998. Burning prairie to restore butterfly habitat: a modeling approach to
management tradeoffs for the fender’s blue. Restoration Ecology 6(3):244-252.
Swengel, A.B. 1996. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. Biological
Conservation 76:73-85.
Tisch, E. 2002. The natural history of a coastal prairie in Olympic National Park. Voice of the Wild Olympics
10(2):5-7.
Townsend, C.R., M. Begon, and J.L. Harper. 2008. Essentials of Ecology. Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing,
Malden, MA.
Tryon, R.M. 1941. A revision of the genus Pteridium. Rhodora 43(505):1-31, 36-67.
Underhill, R.1945. Indians of the Pacific Northwest. W.W. Beatty (ed.). Washington, D.C.: Branch of Education
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Underwood, S. 1981. Letter to Darlene Allen, August 20. Ozette Prairies File, Olympic National Park
Archives.
University of Oregon. 1989. Olympic National Park Roose’s Prairie Homestead and Kestner-Higley
Homestead. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1937. Range Plant Handbook. Washington, D.C.
71

Vanderhoof, M. 1960. Death of pioneer ends story of ‘last man west.’ Port Angeles Evening News. April
11.
_____________. 1991. Interview by Jacilee Wray. Oral History Collection Olympic National Park.
Ward, H.S., and L.J. Goodman. 1985. A Makah biography. Pages 51-57 In: Digging for Roots: Works by
Women of the North Olympic Peninsula. Dalmo’ma 5. C.V. Pacosz and S. Oliver (eds.). Self-published.
Washington Natural Heritage Information System. 2007. Known High-Quality or Rare Plant Communities
and Wetland Ecosystems of Washington. Clallam County. http://dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/
communitiesxco/clallam.html
Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988. Public Law 100-668. 100th Congress. Title I--Olympic National
Park Wilderness. 102 Stat. 3961-3968. Approved November 16.
Waterman, T.T. 1920. Puget Sound Geography. Vol. I Files 1-8. Vol. II Files 9-14 and Vol. III Files 15-25.
Copy from microfilm [1864 Wash,. Ethnol.] at University of California Archives, Museum of Anthropology
Archives, Berkeley.
Weissbach, M. and M. Bivin. 1997. Roose’s Prairie Survey of Vascular Plants. Unpublished Report.
Wessen, G.C. 1984. A Report of Preliminary Archaeological Investigations at 45Ca 201: A ‘Second Terrace’
Shell Midden near Sand Point, Olympic National Park, Washington. (Report on file with the Division of
Cultural Resources, Pacifric Northwest Region, National Park Service, Seattle.)
Wessen, G.C. 1990. Prehistory of the ocean coast of Washington. Pages 412-421 In: Handbook of North
American Indians. Vol. 7: Northwest Coast. W. Suttles, (ed.). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
____________. 1994. Part III: Subsistence patterns as reflected by invertebrate remains recovered at the
Ozette site. Pages 93-196 In: Ozette Archaeological Project Research Reports. Volume II: Fauna. S.R. Samuels
(ed.). Department of Anthropology Reports of Investigations 66. Washington State University, Pullman,
and National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Seattle.
Whitlock, C. 1992. Vegetational and climatic history of the Pacific Northwest during the last 20,000 years:
implications for understanding present-day biodiversity. Northwest Environ. J. 8:5-28.
Woodward, A.W., E.G. Schreiner, D.B. Houston, and B.B. Moorhead 1994. Ungulate-forest relationships on
the Olympic Peninsula: retrospective exclosure studies. Northwest Science 68:97-110.
Wray, J. 1997. Olympic National Park Ethnographic Overview and Assessment. Olympic National Park,
WA.
72

Appendix 1
Linda Kunze’s Unpublished Botanical Survey Notes of Wetlands
in Olympic National Park, 1989
(Note: State listed plant information is eliminated from these notes)
Linda Kunze’s Survey of Ahlstrom’s Prairie
“81 acre ‘prairie’. Rolling topography, ridges, and troughs oriented basically north-south. Ground
is uneven with microtopographic variation-mosaic of swales and wet depressions within generally higher
ground. Three drainages: Eastern and westernmost are short, wet but with conifers. Larger coastal drainage
is wet and has few conifers--seems to not have an outflow. Central drainage is dominated by sedges
and has living sphagnum. Seasonally flooded. Rest of site appears to be seral stage, recovering from fire.
Small conifers are abundant. Understory is dominated by Ledum, Pteridium Aquilinum, Kalmia occidentalis,
Sphagnum, Gaultheria in places and has lots of Calamagrostis nutkensis. The small depresions are vegetationally
like the drainages. Soils in the drainages have peat development. The higher ground (ridges) often
have virtually no soil development=mineral soil of glacial till. The area was burned recently--probably
by Ahlstrom to create pasture for sheep. The drier areas appear to be evolving towards a THPL-TSHE/
GASH-VAOV [Thuja plicata-Tsuga heterophylla/Gaultheria shallon-Vaccinium ovatum] coastal forest. The
drainages and depressions may continue to be fairly open, or may progress towards a wetter THPL-TSHE
community. It is possible that the area was kept clear in presettlement times by natural fires and/or fires
set by the native people. Park staff have no plans currently to burn the prairie.”
Plants that Linda Kunze recorded on Ahlstrom’s Prairie that are useful to the Makah include:
Blechnum spicant, Carex obnupta, Cornus canadensis, Empetrum nigrum, Eriophorum chamissonis, Gaultheria
shallon, Ledum groenlandicum, Lycopodium clavatum, Maianthenum dilatatum, Pteridium aquilinum, Pyrus
fusca, Vaccinum ovatum, and Vaccinium oxycoccos.
Linda Kunze’s Survey of Roose’s Prairie
“74 acres ‘prairie’ northeast of Ahlstrom’s Prairie. It is located partially in the Olympic National
Park and partially in the Ozette Indian Reservation. Roose’s buildings are in a clearing on a ridge S.W. of
the prairie. Roose pastured sheep in the area and probably burned portions of the prairie to create/maintain
open areas for them. The prairie is composed of 1) 48 acres/ uneven topography that is relatively dry,
was burned and is currently vegetated with low growing sphagnum bog species, GASH [Gaultheria shallon],
VAOV [Vaccinium ovatum] and small/young conifers; 2) 2 acres/ a draw that is perennially wet and
has dense sphagnum and is dominated by sedges and herbs; and 3) 24 acres/ a large flat area of sphag-
73

num hummocks dominated by Empretum nigrum that has stunted conifers. Numbers 1 & 2 were clearly
used by livestock and 1 was apparently burned and some trees cut. 3 appears untouched or has made a
remarkable recovery from past use. Number 1 will probably progress to a THPL-TSHE/GASH-VAOV
[Thuja plicata-Tsuga heterophylla/Gaultheria shallon-Vaccinium ovatum] forest community. The sphagnum
communities at this stage are interesting. Number 3 may continue to be what it is now or may slowly
transition to a wet THPL-TSHE forest. Conifers are stunted and there are many small snags suggesting
that trees don’t grow well and the system may be at a climatic climax.”
Plants that Linda Kunze recorded on Roose’s Prairie that are useful to the Makah include:
Blechnum spicant, Carex obnupta, Cornus canadensis, Empetrum nigrum, Eriophorum chamissonis, Gaultheria
shallon, Ledum groenlandicum, Lycopodium clavatum, Maianthenum dilatatum, Pteridium aquilinum, and Vaccinium
oxycoccos.
Linda Kunze’s Survey of Capa Alava Prairie [also called West Prairie]
“Approximately 19 acre sphagnum bog about 2 miles west of the Ozette Ranger station on the
Cape Alava trail. About 1/4 mile west of Ahlstrom’s Prairie, narrow and rectangular in shape, oriented
north-south. Generally dominated by low growing shrubs (LEGR & KAOC) and several species of sedges.
Small THPL & TSHE are abundant in areas. The system drains along its east side. This drainage is wetter
than the rest of the site and the vegetation reflects it--there is more RHAL & CALI along the drainage
in particular. The site appears to have burned in the past. There are snag/stumps in the bog that were
burned, as well as on the hillside to the west. The site is seasonally flooded. Soils are peat. I don’t have
any land use history for this site, but it is probable that sheep and possibly cattle were grazed here in the
past. It is possible that the area was purposely burned to increase pasture for livestock.”
Plants that Linda Kunze recorded on Cape Alava Prairie that are useful to the Makah include:
Blechnum spicant, Carex obnupta, Cornus canadensis, Empetrum nigrum, Eriophorum chamissonis, Gaultheria
shallon, Ledum groenlandicum, Pteridium aquilinum, and Vaccinium oxycoccos.
Linda Kunze’s Survey of Manny’s Prairie
“Approximately a 49 acre ‘Prairie’. Burned in recent past. Manny, and often large, THPL snags.
Repro [reproduction] dense THPLA & TSHE with GASH, VAOV, and PTAO understory. Lost of LEGR,
Cornus canadensis and sphagnum. May be later successional stage of ‘prairies’. Large THPLA snags, density
of repro and GASH-VAOV suggest that it is different from most prairies. Don’t know whether fire was
natural or set by settlers. Site is marginal between wetland and upland.”
74

Plants that Linda Kunze recorded on Manny’s Prairie that are useful to the Makah include: Blech-
num spicant, Cornus canadensis, Gaultheria shallon, Ledum groenlandicum, Lysichitum americanum, Pteridium
aquilinum, Vaccinium ovatum, and Vaccinium parvifolium.
Linda Kunze’s Survey of Allen’s Slough [Allen’s Prairie]
“27 acres open bog and 26 acres bog forest along Allens Slough, S.W. end Lake Ozette. Long
narrow wetland system on either side of Allens slough, slow moving stream of brown water with beaver
activity. Wetland in sphagnum, sedge and heath peat with woody material in bog forest. Open bog
is dominated by Myrica gale (MYGA). In places MYGA is 5-6’ tall, forming dense thickets over sphagnum
moss. Sanguisorba, Spirea douglasii, Pyrus fusca and Carex sitchensis may also be prominant. In places
MYGA is 1 foot tall and is codom. [codominant] with Sanguisorba, Carex livida and sometimes Dodecatheon
jeffreyi, C. ph, llomanica, C. rostrata, C. sitchensis. A few areas are dom. by C. sitchensis but have the other
species in the understory. The site appears in excellent condition. There is a series of lines, oriented eastwest,
at the south end of the site. These may be section-township lines created by surveyors. Most are
shallow channels now. The bog forest is mostly on the south. & west sides of the slough. That near the
NW was not surveyed but will be included in site #118. Near the open bog it tends to have more PICO
and avey from the bog were THPL. MYGA and other open bog species occur in the forested bog. But also
GASH & VAOV. Peat soils, very wet. Small streams, c & springs and surface water. Losts of supersaturated
mud holes. A few cut trees found west of 11: pole sized. Northern 1/3 of slough bog is a mosaic of
MYGA SPOO/CHORS. This site includes small bog NW and upstream of slough (see community survey
form for Allens Bay Bog) Forests between slough-Bay and Pacific Ocean are not wetlands for the most
part. They are THPL\VAOV that appear to have been burned in the past.”
Linda Kunze records the presence of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) at Allen’s Prairie which
C. Leo Hitchcock and Arthur Cronquist (1973:62) say is found “often in pure stands in areas long since
burned over.”
Plants that Linda Kunze recorded on Allen’s Slough (Allen’s Prairie) that are useful to the Makah
include: Blechnum spicant, Carex obnupta, Carex sitchensis, Cornus canadensis, Gaultheria shallon, Ledum groenlandicum,
Maianthenum dilatatum, Pteridium aquilinum, Pyrus fusca, Vaccinum ovatum, Vaccinum parvifolium,
and Vaccinium oxycoccos.
75

Linda Kunze’s Survey of Sand Point Trail Prairie
“90 acre area along Sand Point Trail, Lake Ozette. Burned in past and some logging. Appears
to be regenerating. THPL-TSHE/GASH-VAOV forest communities. Highly grazed/browsed and
trampled in places so open. Pocket wetlands with sphagnum and ‘prairie’ veg. These appear to be being
encroached upon by conifers. A rectangular hold line with logs may be an old well. It is located in the
wetland at the far north end of the site. If it is a well, it suggests that the site may have been homesteaded
as were most of the ‘prairies’ in the area.”
Plants that Linda Kunze recorded on Ahlstrom’s Prairie that are useful to the Makah include:
Blechnum spicant, Carex obnupta, Cornus canadensis, Empetrum nigrum, Gaultheria shallon, Ledum groenlandicum,
Lycopodium clavatum, Maianthenum dilatatum, Pteridium aquilinum, Pyrus fusca, Rhamnus purshiana,
Vaccinum ovatum, and Vaccinium oxycoccos.
76

Appendix 2
Quote from James Swan’s Unpublished Field Notes
On July 21, 1864, James Swan had lunch at the Ozette Village and then took off by foot down
what is now called the Cape Alava Trail, bound for Ozette Lake, accompanied by Indians from Badda,
Kiddecubbut (a Makah summer village), and Ozette. On the way they walked through West Prairie and
Ahlstrom’s Prairie, both of which Swan described in the following passage (1859-1866):
“The trail commenced a short distance south of the village and runs up to the top of the hill or
bluff which is rather steep and about sixty feet high. From the summit we proceeded in an easterly direction
through a very thick forest half a mile and reached an open prairie which is dry and covered with
fern, dwarf sallal [sic] and some red top grass, with open timber around the sides. This prairie has the
appearance of being long and narrow. Its length running in the direction of the coast and about a quarter
of a mile wide where we crossed it, although from the appearance of the land south I infer that it is much
wider at intervals. From the prairie we pass through another belt of timber to another prairie lying in
the same general direction as the first but somewhat lower and having the appearance of being wet and
boggy. This was covered in its drier portions with a coarse grass and some red top and in the lower portions
with water grass and thick moss which yielded moisture on the pressure of the feet.”
Had Swan taken photographs, made accurate field measurements, and done a vegetation tran-
sect, we would have had a better idea of what the Ozette Prairies were like before they began their change
to forested habitat. But his description offers some vital clues nevertheless. It appears that West Prairie, at
least, was much bigger than it is now. It was a quarter of a mile wide where Swan crossed and appeared
‘much wider at intervals,” whereas a 1984-edition quadrangle map shows a maximum width of little
more than a quarter mile as well as constrictions that make it discontinuous along its length. Swan also
described the wetland as being surrounded by “open timber,” whereas the present bordering forest is
dense and thick with undergrowth.
77

Appendix 3
Evidence of Indian Burning on the Ozette Prairies
of Olympic National Park
From Colson’s Abstract Field Notes and Newspaper Articles
Anthropologist Elizabeth Colson (1941-1944) interviewed Alice Kalappa (Makah) in the early
1940s about Ozette Settlements and Ms. Kalappa said: “They used to burn the berry grounds, after they
had picked the berries. And the cranberry marsh, they would burn that to have a good marsh to keep the
trees out. Now there are lots of trees on the marsh because nobody takes care of it anymore.”
“Old settlers say the prairies such as Forks, Quillayute, Beaver and Ozette, were Indian hunting
grounds. They believe the clearings were first caused by lightningset forest fires. Then when the ferns
grew up and become dry in the fall, the Indians set them afire. After a few years all the charred stumps
and logs were consumed and no second-growth trees had a chance to grow. Grass came up and the deer
and elk came there to feed. The Indians built platforms in the trees at the edge of the clearings and shot
the animals with bows and arrows as they congregated on the prairie” (Anonymous 1953).
“Explanations of small and large prairies in the peninsula area was given by Keller, who claims the clear-
ings were made by Indian fires. The Indians burned off the timber so they could more readily kill the elk
and deer by hiding in the timber along the edges of the clearing and shooting the animals with their short
range bows and arrows. Each year for years the underbrush was burned over so that eventually there was
a natural open meadow on which grass grew. There was no heavy underbrush or trees left in the tracts
and the game congregated there to feed” (Henson 1940).
“Although listed on the maps as ‘prairie,’ Ahlstrom stated his clearing was an area burned over
by the Indians before his arrival.... He back-packs his supplies in by trail from the end of the road where
Emil Pearson [sic] leaves them for him. Pearson [sic] takes his orders for supplies into Clallam Bay”
(Haugland 1946).
“There already was a clearing here when Lars came in 1902. The Ozette Indians, who had a vil-
lage on the ocean beach a mile to the west, had kept the area burned over for a cattle range. There was an
old native hut, too, in which Lars lived while he gathered material for his present home. He got along fine
with the Ozettes, and bought salvaged drift-boards and planks from them with which to build. And after
he got settled and had acquired four cows, he traded butter and garden truck with the Indians for fish
and game” (Bertelson 1948).
78

“Today’s visitor may find it a little more difficult to imagine the wonder I felt at first sight of Ahl-
strom’s Prairie. Having been reared where people struggle to cut down, root out, and keep back the dense
growth of the rain forest, I had never before seen so much naturally unforested land. It seemed unbelievable
when the grown-ups belittled the seemingly vast expanse by informing me that there were places in
the world where one could not even see a tree. Moreover, they said, this was not a true prairie because it
was covered with sedges, heaths, and bracken, not grass. Furthermore most of it was not even a natural
opening but a ‘burn,’ a place where the trees grew poorly because of the glacial, hardpan soil. The Indians
burned it yearly to discourage further tree growth so that deer would find better browse, and to foster
the growth of the bracken and the fruitfulness of the evergreen huckleberries, both of which were important
items in their [the Indians’] diet.... Serious misfortune inflicted a serious setback to his [Ahlstrom’s]
developing homestead and his plans when, during one of his absences, all of his buildings burned to the
ground. The settlers on the burns had continued the Indians’ practice of firing the burns each year. In
fact, such a practice was necessary as a means of fire-prevention, for the dead bracken became dangerous
tinder after the first warm, sunny days of spring. Unusually dry weather that year permitted the burning
fire to become an uncontroled threat. Ahlstrom’s nearest neighbor and fellow-homesteader [Pete Roose]
had worked through two days and a night to save his own buildings, and had the fire under control, he
thought before leaving for Lake Ozette. He was dismayed to find only blackened, smouldering remants
of his neighbor’s [Lars Alstrom] building when he returned the next morning” (Vanderhoof 1960).
“Ahlstrom, a former logger, more than half a century ago settled on the prairie and built his home
there. The open prairie in the woods contains more than 100 acres... On my several visits to Ahlstrom I
found he was a supreme optimist. For half a century he expected a road to pass through his place. The
prairie was one of those created by fires many, many years ago. Indians perpetuated the prairies as
hunting ground by each year burning the dry bracken that covered them. This burning kept the second
growth timber from growing. That prairie and others, were grazing places for deer and elk. Indians, from
the shelter of adjacent trees could get close enough to the animals to kill them, with bows and arrows.
Immediately west of Ahlstrom’s prairie is a smaller one, also the home of many deer” (Henson 1960).
79

Appendix 4
Evidence of Indian Burning on the Ozette Prairies
of Olympic National Park
From Oral Interviews and Historical Literature
“The Indians used to burn off patches in the prairies [Ozette Prairies]. They would burn them off
like that and then the grass would come up and the deer and elk would come in to feed and the Indians
would hunt” (James Wesseler pers. comm. 2002).
“...the Indians used to burn those prairies [Ozette Prairies] every year or every other year to keep
all the brush down, to keep it open. And because it was good hunting when everything was burned
down. It was just common knowledge that they used to burn on those prairies. After they would burn
those prairies everything would come up in little green sprouts and that was real good feed for the deer
and the elk. And where they used to burn mostly was at the south end. There was a big prairie at the
south end [Norwegian Memorial Trail skirts that prairie]. Ross Colby, Myron Colby and their father
Harry would go down and hunt there. When I was in high school there was still good hunting down
there because the prairies had been burned quite extensively. I don’t know if every year, or every two or
three years they would burn them. They burned in September or October--September probably. Harry
Colby was full-blooded Indian” (Bud Klock pers comm. 2002).
“The only ones that I ever heard from were the old-timers, Ahlstrom and Pete Roose, telling us
kids that the Indians used to burn the Ozette Prairies and Manny’s Prairie for hunting grounds. By burning
an area off, then the new foliage would come out and then the deer and the elk would come out there
and probably bear too. The animals would feed on the swamp grass and the moss. Then the Indians
had a good chance of getting animals because they could surround them and they couldn’t get away.
That’s the way that they would get their meat. But you take that woods out there--it’s just about impossible
to hunt it’s so thick. The Indians most likely burned in June or July when it was dry. I think most
of them burned when the wind was blowing from the Northeast towards the ocean and that’s the driest
time. There’s less chance of a fire going very far from the northeast because the only way that it could
do it, it had to go to the ocean. It couldn’t go inland. The Indians probably burned portions each year. I
don’t think that they burned the whole prairie each year. I think they burned small areas each year. If you
burned the whole thing off then you wouldn’t have any area for the deer to come back or the elk to come
back to because it would be all black and there’s nothing to eat. If you burned small areas off you would
still have the areas where the deer could have food and you could still get them. Another reason that they
burned it was to keep the brush from closing in too fast” (Emil Person pers. comm. 2006).
80

“My dad William Henderson Bowlby and my stepdad Clyde Maneval told of the Indians burn-
ing the prairies. The closest was Shuwah. No Beaver Prairie, then Shuwah, then Forks Prairie, then
Quillayute Prairie, then Little Prairie. And those are the ones on that end in the eastern part. And then
there was what we called Ahlstrom’s Prairie up past Ozette Lake and Roose’s Prairie. The Indians always
waited until it was very dry before they burned so it would be probably a hot day in August. They
burned once a year. When they started a fire it would burn everything that was there. And that was the
object to burn everything that was there and keep the trees off of the prairie and around the edges so that
the woods wouldn’t creep in on the elk pasture. And of course that would be the purpose of burning the
prairie in the first place, so the animals--elk and deer--would have some grass to eat” (Bob Bowlby pers.
comm. 2003).
“And, the prairies at the north end of the lake, which had been created by the Ozette Indians by
burning to provide grazing and hunting land for deer and cattle, were then, after 1900 partially occupied
by three bachelors. Lars Kristopher Ahlstrom came in 1902 and was the westernmost settler along the
Ozette trail to the ocean, while two cousins, Peter and Arthur Roose lived east of Ahlstrom from 1905
until 1930” (Fish 1983:18).
“Ahlstrom’s prairie, located on ONP’s coastal strip, halfway between Cape Alava and the north
end of Lake Ozette, belongs in the wet prairie category. It, too, has had a long fire history. In a recent inter-
view with Myra Vanderhoof, one of the last children born to homesteaders at the now-extinct Lake Ozette
settlement, she informed me that in the early 1900s the white settlers found an abundance of fire-scarred
trees in the forests adjoining Ahlstrom’s Prairie to the west. At that time most of the trees between Ozette
and Cape Alava also seemed smaller than they are today. The homesteaders assumed that the local Ozette
Indians had burned their prairies to eliminate trees and to keep down the salal understories. When Myra
first visited Ahlstrom’s Prairie, around 1927, she found it very sparsely forested” (Tisch 2002:1).
“Burning forests was indeed an ancient practice. The West End has a half-dozen or more prairies
created by burning. The Indians burned to create meadows which in turn would attract game. They
burned the prairies annually in the fall to keep the brush down. The Forks, Quillayute, and Ozette
Prairies were the largest. White settlers burned forests not only to open up land for farming but also to
encourage the growth of berries” (Douglas 1964:177).
“Ahlstrom gained prominence as the westernmost rancher in the United States. His prairie prob-
ably was an old burn created by Indians from Ozette village for a hunting ground” (McDonald 1961).
81

Appendix 5
Evidence of Indian Burning on Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie
from Oral Interviews and the Historical Literature
“I gather crabapple bark, Labrador tea, and cranberries at Ts’oo-yuhs in September and use
them on special occasions. I make a sauce out of the cranberries and I heard that to preserve them people
would float them in water. The Labrador tea leaves are dried out in the open for a couple of days. They
are steeped for 3 to 4 minutes. I heard that they burned the marsh [Ts’oo-yuhs] for cranberry” (Melissa
Peterson, Makah, pers. comm. 2003).
“There have been a number of people here that talked about burning the Ts’oo-yuhs prairie at the
cranberry marsh so that the trees wouldn’t come--my father-in-law Jerry McCarty and Minerva Claplanhoo.
It seemed like they burned in the fall time after they picked the berries and after they picked the tea-
-it seemed like October. It was after the cranberries so it wouldn’t have been October. It could even have
been December if there was no snow” (Kate McCarty pers. comm. 2002).
“The Labrador tea can just keep growing and growing and growing until it gets real leggy. And
all that you have is just a few little leaves on top. But after it’s been burned then it starts all over again.
It’s just like pinching flowers off of the chrysanthemum to make them bush out. And the little cranberry
plant--it seemed like when they would burn them, they would just burn the top part of the sphagnum
moss and not down where the roots are. After a fire it seemed like there were more and then they would
get less and less. They didn’t burn every year, but I don’t know how often they burned “ (Kate McCarty
pers. comm. 2002).
“My dad [Lloyd Colfax] mentioned that the [Ts’oo-yuhs] prairie was burned yearly or whenever
it was necessary. When the cranberry bogs would get so overgrown then the folks knew that it was time
to do it. And so it was generally in autumn I think when it happened--just at the time when you had
your long spells of light summer weather in September and October. And it was the perfect time to do it
because you match it to the wind and you match it to upcoming rains. So there was really quite an art to
it. I have a friend, Ernie Chieko and he can remember going out into the prairie and coming out within
a couple of hours with gallon buckets of cranberries.What I was told is that it just gets overgrown and
you’ve got few berries. And so you’ve got to burn it to burn down all the other kinds of vegetation and
plant life that chokes off the cranberries. Once you do that then they’ve got room to do what they have
to do. It [the fire] releases other kinds of fertilizers and nutrients. And it does something to create the
balance to give you a big harvest of cranberries. The prairie is about 50 or 60 acres (Gary Colfax, Makah,
pers. comm. 2003).
82

“My father [Perry Ides] said that a long time ago that they used to burn the cranberries for
harvest. They would burn portions of it too you know lay hay on there I guess and then burn the cranberries.
And they said that kept cranberries going. They would do that every so often. They burned in
September--when they’re all bloomed out and Thanksgiving Day the cranberries would be there. See
after the east winds[stop] before the rain sets in you know. They always call it nine days wind you know.
The plants would dry and they would start fires there--before the cranberries got sogged. I don’t know
how often they burned--every year or every so often. Maybe five-year period. But they wouldn’t burn
the same place all the time you know. But I imagine that it was to fertilize itself. My dad told me that
it doesn’t burn the seeds. They said that after that it would get to be charred, but the root would not be
hurt. And that’s how come it would come back and be cranberries. When they burned, they burned the
whole bog. It was an ancient method of rejuvenating the earth. I imagine that they might have had the
same thing there at Ozette. Because Ozette is similar to what the Ts’oo-yuhs Valley is. If Ozette had some
[cranberries] it would be the same procedures of growing” (John H. Ides, Makah, pers. comm. 2006).
“It’s a sixty or eighty acre bog out in Ts’oo-yuhs. It probably has shrunk to less than thirty acres
now. They would gather the tea leaves [Indian or Labrador tea] and cranberries in there. I call it Ozette
tea. With no activity in the bog, the little spruce trees are now six feet high. The only fire that I have witnessed
in my lifetime or even heard about was set probably in 1986 and it was not intentionally started.
It was a brush fire and the east wind kicked up. It burned about ten acres. The places where it got burned
are the choicest cranberry pickings now and have the riches tea leaves. Before the tea leaves were very
coarse and it was hard picking. Now in the areas where that fire was, you can fill up a bag in a little time.
The cranberries are almost double the size in the burned area. It just shows me that somebody tended
to that bog years ago. If you walk out there--as your standing on four feet of moss your foot might sink
down underwater in some places. The 1986 fire was a fast, quick fire--that burned on top where it was
dry” (Gary Ray, Makah, pers. comm. 2006).
Pat Boachup says that Indian tea (Ledum groenlandicum) has five names: “Indian tea, wild tea,
Hudson Bay tea, swamp tea, and Labrador tea. People burned in the cranberry marsh to promote a better
crop of cranberries and Indian tea. Our people have been drinking the Indian tea for thousands of years.
But you can never drink enough. A lot of people like the Indian tea. Another reason to burn was to keep
the brush and trees from growing. Otherwise it would be a loss. The marsh behind the school, unless
someone burns it, it will be history. It is being encroached by trees and shrubs. Unless they’re cut down
and burned, they’ll eventually take over the cranberry marsh just like at Ozette” (Pat Boachup, Makah,
pers. comm. 2002).
Gary Ray, Makah, hunts on the Ts’oo-yuhs Prairie. He says (pers. comm. 2006): “There’s deer,
83

ear, and elk that graze in there. The reason that it’s so good is because you can walk so quietly in there.
You just wait for a certain wind and then you enter the bog, whatever bog you want to hike in opposite
the direction of the wind. There was good visibility and you can get so close--you could almost jump on
the backs of some of them. These areas had to be maintained for hunting well back when all one had was
a spear and bow and arrow. You can get that close to the deer when they’re chomping on those cranberries.
Same way with the bears. Deer also eat the moss. I hunt there every year. Just about fill our freezer
up with all that we need. There was good deer hunting on Ozette Prairies. It was always a pretty sure
thing--that you could get one there.”
Gary Ray, Makah, (pers. comm. 2007) learned from Lewis Trettivick that “the Makah used to burn
the Ts’oo-yuhs bog to make the cranberries better.” Trettivick was married to a Makah woman for many
years.
“There was burning of the land—only the cranberry marsh. There was talk about that when I
was young. I remember them talking about it so that the cranberries and the Indian tea would grow, you
know, grow right.” (Sadie Johnson, Makah, pers. comm. 2002).
Helma Ward, Makah, told Gill (1984:5) that “Formerly the cranberry marsh at Tsues [Ts’oo-yuhs]
was burned every ten years or so to maintain cranberry production. At present, fruit production on the
prairies near Neah Bay and Ozette is generally very sparse.”
84

Appendix 6
Quileute Exploitation and Maintenance of Prairies
in Traditional Times
By J. V. (Jay) Powell, PhD
December, 2002
(A report based on published and archival sources and ethnographic notes recorded by the author
INTRODUCTION
between 1968 and the present at LaPush and Lower Hoh River, Washington)
The Quileute Indians live on the western side of the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. Their
traditional territory includes the watersheds of the Sol Duc, Calawah, Bogachiel and Dickey Rivers, and
extends from the Olympic mountains to the Pacific littoral. The Quileute Reservation is at LaPush, a
village located at the mouth of the Quillayute River. Note that various anglicized spellings of Kwo’liyot’
have come into use over time and are used or quoted herein as they are used: Quileute, Quillayute, Quiliute,
Quillehuyt.
The Quileute were aware of the value of prairie areas. They maintained them, occupied them, and
relied on the food and materials they hunted and harvested there. They called prairies yaqw. Several of
these open flatlands existed within their traditional territory at the time of contact. This report is primarily
about the Quileute, but another Quileute-speaking tribe, the Hoh, live to the south of the Quileute at
the mouth of the Hoh River, whose watershed comprises the Hoh’s traditional territory of use and occupancy.
I will occasionally refer to the Hoh, as well. That the Quileute and Hoh systematically exploited
and maintained their prairies is recorded in the historic and ethnographic record. This report undertakes
to document the lore (knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and products) of prairies in the traditional lifeways
of the Quileute-speaking peoples. The term “traditional” will be used with regard to Quileute perspectives
and behaviours that pertained just before treaty times and, in many cases pertained into this century
or continue to the present.
The body of this report, then, is composed of a cultural description of aboriginal prairie use.
The Quileute cultural patterns that I present appear to be warranted based on historical records and the
recorded statements of Quileute elders. As recently as the 1980s, I interviewed Quileute old people who
had foraged and camped in those prairies in their youth and even saw them burned. It is our goal to
reconstruct a cultural perspective, a set of traditional Quileute cognitive definitions that will allow us to
project how the talaykila pots’oqw (“the old-time Indians”) actually thought about their prairies in terms
of issues such as ownership, stewardship responsibilities, annual cycle, exploitation of the prairies, and
85

the spiritual world of the prairies. Such a reconstruction of a past and not-clearly-attested aspect of culture
is an anthropologically daring undertaking. To the extent that it is successful, readers will be enabled
by narrow definitions and logical inference to visualize what traditional Quileute did in their prairies and
to understand why they did these things.
For ease of reference, this report includes an appendix that presents an incomplete set of Quileute ethnographic
texts, chronologically arranged. Quotes and notes in the body of the report primarily refer to
this appendixed material. The report is intended to provide a cultural overview rather than an exhaustive
ecological treatment of aboriginal prairie use. As such, it may serve as a starting point in considering
some broader issues.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PRAIRIES IN TRADITIONAL QUILEUTE LIFE
Yaqw – The Quileute concept of prairie. The term yaqw (pl. yayaqw; lexical suffix -lowot) meaning “prai-
rie” in Quileute refers to a lowland area that is not treed. It does not refer to alpine uplands above the
tree line such as the Seven Lakes area (t’sixil t’lotoqwltal, “high lakes-place”). Nor does it refer to wetlands
that were either seasonal marshes or bogs (loq’wt’lil, pl. loloq’wt’lil) or year-round swamps (t’lixa’,
pl. t’lit’ixa’)
The Prairies of Quileute Country. There were 9 main prairies within the traditional Quileute territory and
several small open wetlands. The old people appear to have thought of these prairie areas in terms of five
main groupings. They certainly distinguished one prairie from another within each area, though. The
main prairie areas and the particular prairies that comprised each area were:
A) the Forks Prairie (qit’layaqw, “upriver prairie”) – the large flatland that became the site of the
settlement of Forks. It was extensively exploited in traditional times, both for hunting and foraging, especially
for bracken roots, which provided dependable carbohydrate sources.
B) the Quillayute Prairie (sat’ayaqw, “downriver prairie” or chikwyaqw, “the large prairie”) and
adjacent Little Quillayute Prairie (q’wadiyaqw, “little prairie”) – the site of numerous early homesteads
and the Quillayute airbase during WWII, these adjacent prairie areas were known as the “camas prairie”
(qwalal’alital, “camas getting place”). The Quileute, especially groups of women, visited it often and
much of what they needed to round out subsistence diets was available there.
C) The small Maxfield Creek Prairie (liwaqq’at’sit yaqw, “prairie at the corner (where the river
86

turns)” or k’ikiLti, “Elk’s home” since Quileute tradition holds that Elk lived here at the Time of Beginnings
and was created here. Close to the traditional settlement site of Shuwah (shoxwat’ or bo’lakw
“turbulent water place”), it was important as a hunting, berrying and digging grounds.
D) The Soleduck Valley (t’sixwoqwsoqw, “the high-upstream prairie area, or possibly t’axital,
“hot area”) was a large area of contiguous and interlocking prairies that was cognitively divided by the
Quileute into the following general divisions: (a) t’loqwolyaqw, “lakeside prairie,” what became known
as the Tyee Prairie (a post-contact name, Tyee is the Chinook Jargon word for ‘chief’); (b) an area that was
traditionally called Beaver Prairie (qwat’layaxi yaqw, “Whale-rocks prairie,” because it contains a chain
of backbone-shaped rocks attributed by Quileute myth to a primeval whale dropped here by Thunderbird;
and (c) prairie segments as far up as the mouth of Bear Creek. This was an important hunting area,
especially for bear, deer and elk. It was also a foraging area. (d) There were also open wetlands along
lower Beaver Creek, Lake Pleasant, lower Lake Creek, and elsewhere in this region that were important
reed-collecting areas but they were not considered prairies.
E) The camas prairie (t’lot’lopa yaqw, “lots of blue things prairie,” located south of Forks on the east
side of the highway, southeast of Dennis the Woodcarver’s workyard) and other open areas in this region
between the Bogachiel and the Hoh Rivers. It was much used by both the Quileute and Hoh, served by a
trail that ran from the south edge of the Forks Prairie to the loop in the middle Hoh River. There are both
prairies (yaqw) and seasonal wetlands (loqwt’lil) here: (1) the central lower half of Sect. 27 between Hell
Roaring Creek and Alder Creek (Lilotq’achal Loq’wt’liL, meaning unknown.), (2) the central lower half of
Sect. 25, east of Alder creek (name unknown).
Prairie Resources utilized by the Quileute. The prairies were basic to Quileute economic patterns. Their
prairies were considered to be both the breadbasket and meat larder of the people. According to a reconstruction
of the ten most important aboriginal food categories (based on Ram Singh, p.48), the products
of prairie foraging represented the 4th and 5th most crucial subsistence foodstuffs: camas, fern, and other
roots; and berries and sprouts. Families regularly moved to summer campsites, over which they had
recognized use-rights. At other times, women would travel alone or in groups to forage in the prairies.
In 1916 Frachtenberg [3:127] remarked “The Quileute, men and women, are good walkers. Even today
many women go for camas south of Forks (14 miles).” Men would hunt in the prairies; women, along
with the elderly and the young, would forage for roots, berries and other edibles, medicinal herbs and
various materials. The following discussion of the economic resources of the Quileute prairies derive
primarily from the work of Reagan (1923; 1934), Frachtenberg (1916), Gunther (1973), and interviews by
the author.
87

Prairie Animal Resources. The prairies were important to Quileute for hunting in traditional times. According
to Billy Hebaladup, quoted by Frachtenberg (1916:3,37):
The Quiliutes used to hunt along the banks of the rivers….The prairies too were full of game and they
hunted especially on Quiliute Prairie (c’hikwyaqw or sat’ayaqw), Forks Prairie (qet’Layaqw), Little
Prairie (q’wadiyaqw), Beaver and Tyee Prairies (t’axetal yaqw ), and Lower Bear Creek prairie area
(t’sixwokwotsoqw yaqw). The hunting areas belong to the whole tribe and are available to anyone.
Although there were “killing zones” or “game runs” through the woods where a few good runners, usually
with dogs, would chase elk and deer into narrow ambushes where their hunting partners waited
with their bows and clubs, the prairies were favored hunting areas for both large and small game. In the
prairies, blinds were commonly used. According to Hebaladup, “A good hunter could shoot (with a bow
and arrow) at a target 200 yards (away) and hit the mark,” skills that Quileute males learned from a variety
of childhood games, contests and constant practice. Besides bow and arrow, spear and hunting club,
a variety of traps, snares, springpoles, deadfalls, and pitfalls were traditionally used in hunting. The first
gun became available to the Quileute in the late 1850s, acquired by Wastoc’hit, b.1836, the father of David
Hudson, according to Hal George; but firearms were not commonly owned by the Quileute until the
1890s, when a trader named Sutcliffe Baxter, who took over after Dan Pullen left LaPush, started trading
45.90 caliber rifles for “a stack of fur seal pelts as high as the rifle stood” (Powell NB 1978:9). Thus, hunting
patterns started to change in the 1890s, along with so many other aspects of Quileute life associated
with the prairies. Until then, hunting was a primary subsistence activity. In 1916, Arthur Howeattle and
Billy Hebaladup told Frachtenberg:
In former days hunting was as important among us Quiliute as fishing, but with the advent of the white
people, the establishment of the reservation, and the going into effect of state game laws, the Quiliutes
gave up hunting until today they are almost exclusively fishermen, going out on the hunt only in cases
where they are short of fish. In former days the country abounded in all kinds of games, especially deer
and elk (3:37).
Ram Singh noted that hunting was not only an issue of being able to shoot straight with a bow and arrow.
This is particularly true in the prairies where, shooting from hiding, Quileute hunted alone or in small
groups; whereas, in the mountains and woods, hunting was generally a group activity with runners and
ambushers. In any case, it is clear that traditional Quileute believed that there is a spiritual component to
successful hunting.
Super-natural means of production….Elk hunters among the Quileute and Quinault were believed to
88

equire the help of particularly strong spirits. In order to obtain a spirit power the young prospective elk
hunter prayed, bathed in a prescribed manner, and subjected himself to severe discipline and hardship….
When he got the power, he was able to lead a party to hunt elk. Indians often hunted elk in the lower
valleys and prairies (Ram Singh, p.43). …Upriver people among the Quileute were expert in all types of
hunting….Most elk hunters with elk hunting power lived in upriver communities (Ram Singh, p.57).
In traditional times, late June was the beginning of the elk-hunting season. Bull elks were considered to
be at optimum fat “when the devil’s club was red.” Cows were hunted in July and August when, after
rutting, they were at peak fatness. Deer were usually hunted in prairies from June to August at dawn
and sunset, and were not chased but shot from blinds and hiding places. Throughout the year, elk, deer,
bear, cougar, wolves and lynx were occasionally caught with spring-poles. Large and small pitfalls were
dug to trap bear and smaller animals. Rabbits and other small animals, grouse, eagles, seagulls and other
birds were snared. Rabbits, raccoons, skunks and other small animals were collected after being incinerated.
The meat of large animals was jerked (cut in strips and dried on racks) at prairie camps and taken
home to be stored for winter provisions. Smaller mammals were eaten immediately. The prairies provided
the following to Quileute hunters:
deer (hawayishka), elk (K’ikil), bear (akil), cougar (widaxwt’si), lynx (da’ida), wolf (lawat’sakil), raccoon
(q’aq’awit), skunk (t’sikw), weasel (wit’sit’si), squirrel (hi’ichiyal), fisher (t’sak’aba) and other small mammals;
also, birds including grouse (hibhib), ducks (general, qwid), and goose (hohokwal).
The prairies appear to have been a meat larder. But, as economic anthropologists often realize by studying
the subsistence patterns of hunting and gathering peoples, the men usually hunt for a living and live
on what the women forage. In traditional times in Quileute country, which was rich in fish and game,
this may not have been the case, but the importance of the roots and fruit of the prairies was clearly basic
to survival.
Terrestrial Plant life as Prairie Resources for the Quileute. The first published description of the Quileute
included a description of the Quileutes’ camas prairie, Sat’ayaqw, which later came to be known as Quillayute
Prairie. This first mention makes it clear that the prairie was extensive and rich in ferns.
On ascending this, I found the beautiful prairie stretched out before me, level with the top of the ascent,
covered with ferns higher than my head, and extending in a northeasterly direction five miles or more in
length and from a half to three quarters of a mile wide [Swan, Wash. Standard, Oct 5, 1861].
89

Ram Singh discussed the importance of prairies to the peoples of the Peninsula in aboriginal times:
In prairies there are camas and ferns with edible roots. There are a few prairies in Quileute and Quinault
country; the Makah had none. The Ozette used one prairie but it was only slightly productive. Camas
and ferns grew profusely in these prairies; the former were economically important and the amount produced
did not meet the demand. It was so highly valued that it was one of the few items purchased by
the Makah and Ozette from the Quileute and Quinault. Camas had a special place at feasts and potlatches
[p.25].
The inquisitive and observant Albert Reagan, who once interrupted a Shaker ceremony at LaPush to take
the pulse of participants, was also not content to simply note that the prairies of Quileute country were
rich and fertile. He described them as follows:
As far as the writer knows, the soil of the prairies, treeless areas covering 4,000 acres, has never been
analyzed. It is a black loam two or more feet in thickness. It is composed of decayed fern roots that have
been collected since the retreat of the great ice sheet. This soil is known to be as good as any in the state.
In fact, the writer has examined the soil in various parts of the United States and he has found none better
(Reagan 1908:21).
Reagan had lived in LaPush with many older Quileute who had been alive in the days before traders and
officials and settlers arrived and everything began to change. He was interested in what we now call
“ethnobotany,” and he interviewed knowledgeable elders about what plants were used and how the old
people used them.
While in charge of different tribes of West Coast Indians from 1905 to 1909 and in 1928, the writer made
a study of the plants used by them. This included a study of the plants they used for food and medicine
and those used in making baskets, mats, in house building, etc. The use of more than eighty plants are
given, their descriptions, and uses to which the Indian put them...These Indians were great users of the
plants of the region in the old days, and still do use some of them (Reagan 1934:55).
Reagan was not only interested in the fact that the Quileute used a particular plant found in their prairies,
but in how it was used. For instance, he describes the crucially important and highly valued bracken
fern, one of the prairie root-plants used by the old people, as follows:
Fern Family. Bracken Fern. Indian name: kakwaput, kah-a-kwa, wot-tsa-a-balk. This fern grows in the
“prairies” of the region and burned-over places, especially in the middle upland regions. It is the fern of
90

Forks and Quillayute prairies. It has been carried to the beach with feed and appears in the old grave-
yard near where the old (Mr. Wesley Smith) schoolhouse used to be at LaPush-Quillayute Indian village.
At Forks prairie it grows as high as a horse... They also dug the roots of these ferns, pounded them to a
pulp, dried the pulp, mixed it into a sort of dough and baked bread from it, which then claim was pretty
good bread. Unluckily, the writer appeared on the scene too late to see any of this fern-paste bread…
(Reagan 1934:56).
It is clear that traditional Quileute knew the plants of their prairies. They knew the uses to which these
plants could be put, at what stage in their growth they should be harvested and how to process them for
use or consumption. What follows is a brief listing of the prairie plant life harvested and used by the
Quileute in traditional times. Some of them, such as camas, are still used on a ceremonial or medicinal
basis characterized by infrequency. Many are not found solely in prairie areas. They are listed by categories:
1) roots, 2) berries and fruits, 3) Other plants used as foodstuffs, and 4) Plants used as materials for
manufacture, medicine, cosmetics, and ceremony.
Roots and Rhizome Plants harvested in or around prairies
Ferns (pilapila, a general term for ferns taken from a traditional game played by children and adults)
The game is played by holding a long fern frond and, after taking a deep breath, touching each of the leafends,
going around the frond counterclockwise as quickly as possible, saying, “Pila” as you touch each
leaf-end. You cannot take another breath and must finish in one breath.
Bracken (k’aqwa’apat), Sword Fern (pilapila), and Ladyfern (t’sikwipat)- The roots (t’sikwi’) were collected,
dried, scraped, ground into a paste, made into a loaf and wrapped in skunk cabbage and then cooked
under fire ashes (called t’soq’wo’ot’sit, “buckskin bread”). Sarah Hines once told the author that after
she was married (c1920) she went out and dug a mess of t’sikwi’ and made them into t’soq’wo’t’sit like
her grandmother did, but she had forgotten how much work it was and she never did it again. Arthur
Howeattle told Frachtenberg that the roots were dug over the winter from November to April (a surprising
timetable!). Fern roots were rolled up and dried in the house by laying them on racks. The roots,
dried like this, lasted a whole year. The recipe: dried fern roots were cut into 2” lengths and roasted over
an open fire, then rolled over a mat to scrape off charcoal. Then they were shredded on flat rocks using
wooden wedges. The bark was mixed with dried salmon eggs and eaten. (He then says, “The inside
meat was thrown away.” This is at odds with other reports by Reagan, Ram Singh, Gunther and others).
The fronds were used for mattresses while camping and wiping (Gunther 1973:13-14; Reagan 1933:56;
Frachtenberg 1916:3:25, 3:27, 3:29, 4:81).
Camas or lacamas (kwala)- The type of camas in the Quileute prairies has small white bulbs generally l”
91

long by ½” thick. It was found originally in most prairies of Quileute territory, but most abundant in the
Quillayute and adjacent Little Prairies and Forks Prairie. The bulbs are dug by turning the earth around
the distinctive blue flowers and can be dug at any time of the year. According to Reagan (p.56), “In preparing
this food, a pit is dug in which a fire is built. On the fuel cobbles are piled, which, when heated to
red heat, are covered over with wet leaves, brush, or grass. On this the bulbs are piled and over all wet
leaves are spread to the thickness of, say, seven inches. Then over all, clay, earth or sand is heaped. Just
before completing the covering over with earth, a quantity of water is poured on the cooking product and
then when the covering is completed a small hole is left through the dirt-layer for the escape of steam.
The cooking is then permitted to continue for about twenty-four hours. The product is removed through
a hole dug through the top of the pit. The earth mound is left and the shifting sand fills up the hole from
which the baked articles have been taken. The mound is then complete, a puzzle for future archaeologists
(clams and fruits were also prepared by the oven process). Oven mounds are scattered throughout
the Olympic region and northward to the Fraser River country.” Camas is still found in the prairie along
the highway south of Forks; even using a shovel, it is hard for two people to gather a gallon in an hour. It
was considered a noteworthy cultural occurrence when, in 1989, a tractor was turning the earth in an uncultivated
area of the Quillayute Prairie; and, Terri Tavenner took the QTS students out and they collected
200 lbs. of camas that was used in several tribal hayoqqwa (ceremonial invitation dinners). Camas was
an important trade item with the Makah, who had none. Many Quileute myths include scenes in which
camas plays a part.
Clover (la’it’ay, “gathering hands”)- The whitish roots were an important foodstuff, eaten either raw or
cooked: steamed and eaten with salmon eggs or dipped in whale oil, or ground and made into loaves for
baking. They were often dug and eaten with silverweed roots.
Silverweed (t’lit’lishit)- Grows in similar environments to clover. Considered a staple and a basic foodstuff.
Usually eaten fresh and collected generally in fall and spring. Only the roots were used: dug and
steamed, which was necessary to remove the bitterness, and then eaten with fish eggs or whale oil. There
were both long, straight roots and curly roots. In a meal, the straight roots were given to chiefs and headmen.
Tiger Lily (lilipiwada’yu) and chocolate lily (k’wachawada’yu)- the roots of both were picked and cooked
(usually steamed) and eaten. Because of a strong (peppery) taste, they were often mixed with oil. Occasionally
eaten with salalberries, with which it often grows, and eaten with fish.
Buttercup (kik’iliq’axpat, “elk bone plant”)- the bones were dug between September and February and
cooked on hot rocks, dipped in whale or salmon oil and eaten with dried salmon eggs.
92

Thistle plant (bo’olob) According to Hal George the old people used to eat the roots of thistles in the old
days The roots look like little white carrots and can be cut up and boiled in soups or boiled and eaten
with other roots or with a jelly made of wild bitter cherry fruit.
Berries and fruits common to prairie environs
Salmonberry (cha’alowa)- The most common and most anticipated berry of Quileute country, as it
was the first berry of the spring and a cherished treat after a winter of preserved foods. The sprouts
(yacht’silat) were peeled and eaten raw or steamed. The red and orange berries were eaten raw or the
juice was extracted and drunk – one of the few juices in the traditional diet.
Red huckleberry (tilo’ot)-
Thimbleberry (taq’achil)-
Trailing blackberry (bada’abixw)-
Wild strawberry (t’obiya, “bending over”)-
Elderberry, red (t’siba)-
Salal (kwo’od)-
Blue huckleberry (towadak or yayaxad)-
Lowbush cranberry (p’ap’a’is)-
Stink currant (t’lilo’oc’hiyil)-
Rose hips (t’likway)-
Wild crabapple (soyoyoxwa’)-
Wild bitter cherry (the Chinook Jargon term, pilpil olalie, “blood fruit” is the only term remembered)-
Blackberry (evergreen or himalaya) (shipq’it’sa, “black berry”)- an introduced berry that spread and
quickly became a staple.
Other plants found in prairie areas used as foodstuffs
Giant Horsetail (probably ba’ax)- Found in wet areas of the prairies, the young shoots were steamed and
eaten in the spring. The juice in the reed was sweet and was sucked out if one were thirsty and not close
to water. The roots (t’sixak) may have been eaten. The juice was used by women as fingernail polish and
by men to make bows, paddles, and canoe prows shine.
Cow parsnips (t’lopit)- One of the most awaited spring plants, along with blackberry and salmonberry
sprouts. It was eaten raw by scraping off the outer fuzz and eating the tube-like stalks like celery. It
served as a tonic, too, when eaten in quantities. In the late summer, tough stalks could be scorched on
a hot rock by the fire and the ashes rubbed on meat or fish as a condiment. Stems were split and woven
into a type of basket called a t’lopitbay
93

Ha’hiba, Trees common around the prairies
Hemlock (tila’)- various sources have mentioned that the prairies were surrounded by stands of large
hemlocks. This shows both that the prairie fires did not burn the surrounding trees and that both the
prairies and those surrounding trees had been there for a long time. For the Quileute, the most important
use of large girth hemlocks was to be a source long, wide strips of hemlock bark that were used in the
walls and roof of the prairie camp-house, the loq’wati, prairie bark house
.
Red Cedar (t’sapis)- The red cedar grew on the edge of some of the prairies. The traditional Quileute uses
of this important tree, called “the tree that made Northwest Coast Indian culture possible” are myriad
(see Powell and Morganroth, p.6-10). Of special interest with regard to the Quileute use of prairies was
the use of cedarbark for berry drying pans and other camp uses, including twined rope. But, even casual
acquaintance with the practical details of traditional Quileute lifeways makes it apparent that cedar was a
daily necessity of life.
Yellow cedar (q’alba)- Yellow cedar was used for carving (esp. bows) and the bark was collected for
finer shredded bark manufacturing, in skirts and for use around the collars of vests and cloaks. Medicinally,
yellow cedar boughs would be burned to cleanse a home or campsite after someone had been ill or
ghosted in a dream or some surprising spiritual manifestation had occurred.
Douglas fir (t’lixits)- Especially preferred for poles in camp-houses such as the loq’wati, hemlock bark
houses in the prairies. Also used for spear handles and canoe poles. Fir gum was used to treat abrasions
and chewed for pleasure.
Silver Fir (t’lixitschaqli, “similar to a fir”)- The silver fir was known as the “helping tree.” Quileute myth
told how in the Time of Beginnings Silver Fir was the brother of Fir and would always help him out when
he needed something. Fir boughs were used in the kit’lakwal “elk dance ritual,” and when a hunter had
not had luck the last time out, he would sleep on silver fir boughs on the nights before going out hunting
again.
Grand Fir (t’lokwaliyat, “Wolf Dance ritual wood” or sibi’yat, “stinkwood”), preferred for making the
masks of the t’lokwali Wolf Dance Society ritual. Since the prairies were common places for members
of the secret societies to get together, the materials for ritual gear and regalia were regularly collected in
prairie areas.
Sitka spruce (yaksa)- Important to basketry were spruce roots that were dug and pulled up, split and
then used in burden baskets, especially the large openwork baskets carried by women to the prairies
94

with tumplines. Also used in the weaving of rainhats, nets and ropes. The wood was used in a variety of
manufactures. The boughs had a special power to help cleanse the mind of selfish thoughts and defend
users against unclean thoughts and evil-intentioned spirits, so bunches of sharp spruce needles were
used as body rubs during spirit bathing and sweat bathing. If someone died in a house, a wall of spruce
boughs would be set up around the spot of death to encourage the soul of the departed to actually depart
and move off to the entrance to the underworld. Spruce boughs were useful to a kit’lakwal “elk dance
society hunter,” who wanted to be free of lustful distractions while preparing spiritually for a hunt, and
he would heap them over himself on his sleeping mat while at his hunting camp. The gum was chewed
for pleasure after being boiled.
Yew wood (xiya’)- Yew was hard, so it was used for arrows, digging sticks, wood splitting wedges, hammers,
barnacle-prying bars and other implements that required toughness. Used medicinally, a piece of
yew bark from below the level of the ground was used as a poultice for an infected abrasion. Yew needles
were mixed with kinnickinnick leaves to make qaboqwol, “mixture” used in traditional smoking before
tobacco was introduced. Prominently mentioned in Quileute myths, the yew appeared frequently in
dreams and would communicate with people when something important was about to happen to them.
Thus, it was common for a hunter to use a yew tree as part of a blind or to leave a yew tree growing near
the edge of a prairie.
White pine (xwaxalpat)- The pine was sometimes used in fine carving because of its whiteness (similar
to the wood of devil’s club). The pitch was used medicinally for coughs and for waterproofing baskets.
Fred Woodruff told of a dance apron he had seen with the long penile-shaped cones of white pine sewn
on the front, so that when the dancer twirled the cones swung out and “became erect.”
Cottonwood (kwodokw, also referred to as t’lxitslo talopat, “fir tree’s sister” because of cottonwood’s
thick fir-like bark)- In myth logic, at the Time of Beginnings Fir and Cottonwood were siblings, and Cottonwood
was an excellent dancer, so when she became a tree, her leaves would shake rhythmically. The
cottony seedpods were mixed with cattail fluff, dog wool, and feathers for loom weaving in traditional
times.
Willow of various types (lilaq’a)- Willow poles were driven into the creek and riverbeds and used for
uprights in fish weirs because they would take root under water and hold the weir in place. Willow bark
was dried and used for weaving. According to Reagan, willow limbs were split and scraped thin for use
in basket making. Willow bark tea was used for tonic and medicine. Good cooks had a bag of willow
leaves and would add them to haxk’isa, (fish head soup) for flavor.
95

Vine maple (t’apsiyoqwpat, “splittable plant,” or lalakwtsil)- A truly important wood in Quileute traditional
life, vine maple poles and stakes were used for a variety of purposes in construction, for racks and
frames and implement making. Vine maple withes were split for basket making; the baxwowi basket was
made of vine maple.
Broadleaf maple (la’axal)- Used for carving larger bowls and pots, which were hollowed out. The large
leaves of this maple were used to line the inside of po’pqw and wi’i’is (small and large alder bark baskets
used for storing berries underwater for use during the winter. The thick moss on the north sides of these
trees was rubbed on a boy-child’s chin to cause a thick beard in adulthood.
Red alder (kakaliya)- The alder was common around the prairies, and usually the first to invade an open
area, it was the special objective of the burning process to wipe out encroaching alders. The wood was
used for carving commonly used (and replaced) utensils, e.g. cups, platters, dippers. The bark was dried
and used for red dye used for basketry materials and, even, women’s hair.
Dogwood (bixa’a ha’ba, “blossom tree”)- used in making utilitarian utensils, e.g. hooks and arrows, since
the wood becomes hard after it dries. A myth tells why the Quileute did not eat the berries of dogwood
but may eat the similar looking bunchberry, which were called bixa’aha’bat’sa “little dogwood.”
Cascara (akilipat, “bear plant”)- The bark had medicinal uses, primarily in the treatment of visceral disor-
ders.
T’lo’ob, grasses found in prairie areas
Beargrass (iba)- the most sought after of the basket grasses, not actually recorded as growing within
memory in the Quileute prairies, but its habitats suggest it could’ve been on or around the prairies. It is
called bear grass because bears eat the new growth in the spring; the Quileute term, iba, has no etymological
meaning. Traded by the Quileute as far north as Vancouver Island. It was picked in July or later
and hung in bundles to dry, then split and used for the sidewalls of fine basketry or for basketry designs
when dyed.
Basket sedge or slough sedge (loq’way)- the most common grass in Quileute country, called “swamp
grass” by the Quileute women. It did not grow in the dry prairies, but was common along the streams
through the prairies, in the natural and maintained seasonal marshes or bogs (loq’wt’lil) and year-round
swamps (t’lixa’). Picked, hung in bundles, dried, split and woven in small and large imbricated basketry.
Cattail (sit’say)- There were areas within and along the prairies that provided the cattail reeds that were
96

ought home by the canoeload from wetland areas. Because the “measure of a traditional Quileute
woman” was the quality of her hokwtit, “cattail mats,” women had special places to get quality cattail
reeds and took special care to keep the spirits of the area on-side and to avoid transgressing taboo interdictions
while harvesting. Most women kept the location of their cattail sites a secret. The finest cattails
were remembered to have come from the wetland areas of the Beaver and Tyee Prairie areas.
Tule (xapo’)- Another mat material was both hard and soft-stemmed bulrush, used by the Quileute for
mats, as well. The tule mats were considered “outside mats” for the covering of camping shelters and
temporary smokehouses. The reeds, sometimes up to 8’ in length but usually around 4-5’ long, were also
common on the edges of the prairie at lower Beaver Creek and around Beaver Lake.
Ryegrass (kakipat)- This grass (and xitsi’, the similar dune rye not found in the prairies) was harvested
early in the summer and then dried and long strands (up to 4’) were used for basketry and shorter pieces
were bunched for scrubbing while bathing or pregnant women rubbed themselves with it in order to
have healthy babies.
Scented bedstraw (hac’ht’ada t’lalapat)- The vanilla-ish scent of this plant with burrs made it attractive,
and the Quileute had various uses and folkloric beliefs associated with it. For instance, if a woman
wishes to attract a man, she need only get a couple of his hairs and press them together with some of her
own and some bedstraw, and he will be magically charmed by her. These types of activities are appropriate
to the prairies, which are spiritually active areas and appropriate places for conjuring.
Bedstraw (t’lalapat)-This burred straw-grass was probably distinguished by the Quileute from the
scented variety above. It was also used by the Quileute for conjuring and required sensitivity on the part
of the user, otherwise it could result in the user having blotches on their face if used selfishly or without
gratitude. It was not used for bedding by the Quileute (the name comes from the tradition that Mary
slept on a bed of ferns and bedstraw, and the ferns did not acknowledge her baby and, hence, they do not
have flowers; but the bedstraw did and ever since has greenish-white flowers).
Pilapila, ferns common to the prairie areas
Deer fern (kistolapat)- Quileute children were taught to find and eat the root of this plant in emergencies,
even though it was not tasty. It was used for suppression of appetite between meals (chew up a leaf, spit
out the pulp and swallow the juice). Leaves were also boiled and the liquid drunk as a tonic for general
ill health. Wet fresh leaves were put on limbs for stiffness or paralysis.
Maidenhair fern (hapoqlpat)- The rhizome was not eaten, but it was used for packing (since it was water-
97

proof), and the stalks were used in weaving for designs on beargrass baskets. It was also burned and the
ashes rubbed into the hair for tonic.
Other plantlife common to prairies and adjacent areas in Quileute territory
Anemone (haga’yk’iswa bixa’a, “frogskin flower”)- used by gamblers, who rubbed it on the back of their
hands, where it blistered the skin and made their hands look like frogskin, since frogs were associated
with the spirits of good luck.
Baneberry (kwo’loqwol, “open oneself up thing” or hat’alichiyil, “hair seal leaves”)- Hair seals and sea
mammals were thought to be fond of this and the leaves looked like hair seal skin. Sea mammal hunters
carried the leaves in their harpoon pouches. They knew that it makes one sick to the stomach, but
sometimes put a leaf behind their upper lip when preparing for a hunt as a cathartic. Pregnant women
sometimes chewed a bit for morning sickness with the logic that if one was already queasy, baneberry
(which caused intense stomach upset) would neutralize the morning sickness. It was applied to boils to
bring them to a head.
Boykinia (chiwawoxwchi’oxla)- The leaves were eaten for TB according to Erna Gunther.
Coltsfoot (k’wa’yixpat)- The root was used to make cough medicine, either boiled in tea or eaten raw.
Not only the root, but the flowers were collected in the spring. The flowers were boiled and the infusion
of these was rubbed on the skin after swimming.
Columbine (t’lit’lixlix, “scar maker”)- Since wounds were evidence of experience (that gave men some
authority), it was important that a scar was left, so columbine was rubbed on an open wound to insure a
visible scar (goat’s beard was used on a closed wound). The roots were scraped with a sharp rock and the
milky pulp was put on sores to help them form a scab. The leaves are chewed and spit on sores without
swallowing the juice.
Daisy, Ox-eye (introduced species, but called q’abalpilila, “White faced thing”)- the stems and flowers
were dried and boiled into a pulp for chapped hands. Girls wove them into skirts for “stone-faced dolls,”
a children’s beach toy made by girls in the old days. The faces of the flowers made old people laugh
because they were able to see the images of deceased friends in them, (according to Hal George, “It’s like
seeing a face in the moon.” Plantlife such as this daisy were drawn quickly into Quileute lifeways, pharmacology,
and folklore.
Devil’s club was used as an indicator of season – when the devil’s club is red it’s time to go out and get
98

your elk. Although the white wood of larger stalks made it a useful, sought-after resource, the primary
uses of devil’s club were medicinal and ceremonial. Tea made by boiling whole chunks of the stalk was
used as a blood purifier and treatment for illness in general. Nets were rubbed with devil’s club so fish
would be drawn to enter them. Fishermen carried small carvings of fish from devil’s club for luck.
Fireweed (k’aliba)- the stems were steamed and eaten and the sweet syrupy stems were prized. Could
also be eaten raw by peeling off the silky outer covering. The sap was sucked out of the stem like a straw
and used to sweeten sour things. The fluffy cotton was mixed with other things like cottonwood fluff and
dog hair and used for weaving.
Ginger (hac’hit’adapat, “good smelling/tasting plant”)- The big leaves are used in the steam pit. Tea
from the leaves was used for depression or loss of appetite. Leaves were dried in the sun for two days before
using, but if they got too dry they lost their smell. The leaves are also used in a potpourri with moss
for baby cradleboards and mattresses.
Goat’s beard (t’lililixpat)- used as a medicine by grinding the root into pulp and smear it on open sores.
If the sore is open, drink tea made of ground plants if it won’t heal. The tea was also used as a tonic and
blood purifier.
Indian paintbrush (p’ic’habixa’a, “red flower”)- The whole plant incl. flowers but not roots was crushed
and made into a tea that cause menstruation to be regular, sometimes accompanied by rubbing the vulva
with the blood of a male kwid, “black surf duck.”
Kinnickinnick (qaboqwol, “mixture”)- leaves were mixed with other barks or the burrs of bedstraw(and
later, tobacco) and smoked by the old people in pipes. Quileute smoking involved inhaling smoke inbreathing
again and again without allowing any to smoke escape the lungs, causing dizziness and, often,
unconsciousness. The berries could be eaten, although considered tasteless, and were sometimes used to
stuff birds while cooking (adding a few salalberries that were ripe at the same time).
Labrador tea (kwaxwachiyil, “skinny leaves”)- Used for tea in treatment of chills, illness or for external
application for itches and eruptions…the Quileute did not make tea as a beverage or merely soothing
drink; they only made tea as a treatment for a particular malady.
Miner’s lettuce (p’ip’ic’hist’sip, “red on the ground”)- A pregnant woman rubbed her body with it and
yarrow to have a healthy, strong baby. Also made into a tea to cause cathartic urination. It was ground
and rubbed into the hair to treat dandruff.
99

Mint (k’i’ilt’adapat, “cool smelling plant”)- Mint leaves were used for a rubbing unguent. Chew the leaf
for a nice breath and mix in a leaf with kinnickinnick for a cooler smoke. Not used in cooking.
Nettles (various types: pidawaqwol (small nettles) and tsitskalowa (tall nettles)- the stems were dried and
split and used to make string traditionally used in tying nets (see Frachtenberg, 2:33 for the process). After
the birth of a boychild, a father would hang a string of nettle fiber across the area of the house where
the child lay and attach small carved arrows, bows, and spears to it so his son would be an accomplished
hunter. At puberty, boys were rubbed with old dipnets made of nettle fiber to toughen them. Adults
sometimes beat themselves with nettles to make themselves open to contact with the spirit world. Nettle
strings were used in cat’s cradle games and to wind around tops to start them spinning.
Ocean spray (xak’ilpat, “hard plant”)- Sometimes called ‘ironwood’, as was yewwood, also, it was prized
for making arrows, cod hooks, salmon barbecue sticks and other objects that received hard duty. The
bark could make people tougher, too, and was sewn into whalers’ cloaks. Leaves and seeds were ground
up and mixed with other tea-makings to add toughness to the other benefits of the infusion.
Pearly everlasting (sisibalowa, same as yarrow)- used as yarrow, but also well known as a steambath
plant – Lay it on hat rocks and sit over it with a blanket over your head covering you completely and
pour water on the rocks. It was used for tea, and the infusion could be rubbed on sore joints for easing
pain. Also, it can be rubbed on an open sore
.
Saxifrage (chiwawoxwchiyolit or qwalichiyil, “three leaves”)- The leaves were eaten fresh for lung problems
and coughs
.
Scouring rush (tsilachlpat)- The bushy growth of the rush was used for sandpapering and smoothing
spears and harpoon handles after dogfish skin had been used. It was also used in bathing, for scrubbing
the body to toughen oneself up (along with handfuls of spruce needles and rough sand). Women polished
their fingernails with the juice, which dried shiny.
Selfheal (t’lot’lopabixa’a, “green/blue flowers”)- Believed to have been given to particular families to use
as a private medicinal herb, although poisonous to families who have no rights to it by Q’wati at the Time
of Beginnings.
Silver burrweed, cocklebur plant- The burrs were used in fertility medicines. Smells sweet and was
thought to help a person live to an old age, so it was picked by old people and put under their sleeping
platform.
100

Skunk cabbage (t’okwa or xitsxits)- One of the most used plants in Quileute territory, the skunk cabbage
even had a lunar month named after it: xitsxitsaliqtiya’at, “skunk cabbage getting days.” Leaves were
used to line steam-cooking pits for cooking elderberries and to line the berry storage baskets. The roots
(white part below ground) could be cooked, which takes away the acrid taste, and eaten (but were not
highly prized, and considered late winter fare when the larder was empty). In late pregnancy the roots
were pounded and boiled and the juice, if drunk, would cause an easy delivery. Leaves were applied to
cuts and swellings. A fur seal hunter puts the leaves under the bowpiece of his canoe and when they lie
straight the seals will lie flat, too.
Spaghnum moss (t’owa’as)- Spaghnum moss was collected by the canoeload and brought home for use
as baby diapers in the cradleboards (often mixed with wild ginger leaves). It was pushed into the cracks
between houseplanks as insulation and used to wipe fish. It was used in bending bows, wrapped around
the bow and dampened and buried in hot ashes until pliable.
Trillium (k’wok’wotstadaqchiyil, “thieves’ leaves,” called that because the leaves move slowly in a
“sneaky” manner)- Used medicinally, the bulb is scraped and the scrapings are applied to boils to bring
them to a head.
Twisted stalk (ya’wapat, “snake plant,” because traditional Quileute thought that snakes ate the berries;
and, since snakes are a spiritually liminal creature, if they eat something it is inappropriate for pots’oqw
(“Indians, people”) to eat it. Leaves were thought to smell good and were mixed with wild ginger and
put into the moss used for mattresses.
Wood sorrel (ka’alats or ki’axlatspat)- Hunters chew the leaves, though bitter, while lying in wait for
game to keep themselves keenly focused. Wilted (steamed) leaves are put on boils to draw them.
Yarrow (sisibalwa, same name as pearly everlasting)- Leaves were eaten by women in labor to ease pains.
A newborn was bathed three times a day and rubbed afterwards with cedar bark and yarrow…and then
greased with shark oil. Babies were rubbed with yarrow before they were named. Boil the leaves in an
infant’s bedspace to make the area smell good. Damp leaves were laid on rheumatic limbs. Yarrow teas
were brewed and drunk as a general tonic.
Yellow avens (hat’alichiyil, see also baneberry, above; there seems to be some Quileute relationship
between the two)- Leaves were chewed during labor, because they are supposed to grow where the seals
give birth. Sea mammal hunters carry the leaves in the pouch. Chewed to spit on a boil in order to bring
it to a head, but do not swallow the juice.
101

THE TRADITIONAL CULTURE OF QUILEUTE PRAIRIE USE
Traditional Ownership of the Prairies of Quileute Country: Use Rights and Stewardship Obligations
In this section, we will consider native prairie use in terms of the traditional Quileute concept of
tribal territory and individual land ownership, which are the basis for their sense of land-use rights and
stewardship obligation. First, let’s detail the basis for the Quileute’s sense that their traditional territory
belonged to them, a premise about which they had no doubts. This assumption derives from their worldview
as depicted in their oral tradition. According to the Quileute cosmogony, the world always existed.
Then, during the Time of Beginnings a shape-changing transformer called Q’wati went about the region
changing living things and features of the natural world into what we see in the world today. At the Time
of Beginnings, animals and people were simply beings who had or were given by Qwati the features of
the animals that they became. There are narratives, still told among the tribe, that account for many of
the focal features of Quileute country. For example, Q’wati created the rivers of Quileute country while
escaping from a pack of wolves. Then, later, at the mouth of the Quileute River, Q’wati transformed those
same wolves into the ancestors of the Quileute; and, finding the p’ip’isodat’siLi (“upside-down people”)
living at the mouth of the Hoh River, he created the ancestors of the Hoh people as we know them by
showing them how to walk on their feet instead of their hands. Thus, the oral literature that is Quileute
tribal history confirms that they were created to inhabit, use, collectively own, and pass on to their descendants
the area that includes the drainages of the various rivers that combine to make the Quillayute
River. As Jack Ward said in a potlatch speech in 1928 (QT, p.12).
…yix tas t’siq’ati yix hicha’wataxw hilokiL xi’ chiLqwat’oqw hixat
xwa’ tchi:qa’axw xwa’ tchiLqwat’oqw.
…the land, as it belongs to our children as well as to our children’s children.
There is some tension between many published assumptions about native land “ownership” and the traditional
Quileute concept. In order to make the Quileute customary perspective on land ownership clear,
we will discuss it in terms of:
(a) the Treaty of Olympia’s term “open and unclaimed” land;
(b) Quileute Use-ownership -vs- American legal real property ownership;
(c) Quileute Use-ownership based on building or a continuing improvement on the land;
(d) Quileute concepts of Alienable and Inalienable property;
(e) Permissive utilization of a property’s resources -vs- users in common
Were the Quileute Prairies “Open and Unclaimed land?” The terms “open” and “unclaimed” were
102

egularly used in discussing Indian land ownership on the Olympic Peninsula from treaty times up to the
present. The anthropologist Ronald Olson, implied such a generally loose sense of property ownership
when he described Quinault boundaries as follows:
In theory, the tribal territory embraced the whole region drained by the Quinault River….But, the feel-
ing of ownership or exclusive right to this territory was unheard of, and if expressed would no doubt
have been considered a great joke. Anyone had the right to travel along the beach, to dig clams where he
pleased and to hunt where the game was most plentiful (Olson, p.13).
The Treaty of Olympia implies the same thing in its use of the term “open and unclaimed” with regard to
a guarantee of privileges secured to the signatory tribes:
Article III. The right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations is secured to said
Indians in common with all citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of
curing the same; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their
horses on all open and unclaimed lands (emphasis added).
In fact, we can distinguish two senses of “open and unclaimed” territory in the Quileute (and, probably,
neighboring tribes’) traditional sense of their territory: 1) open and unclaimed territory on the liminal
edges of their territories where they bordered the territories of adjacent tribes; and 2) “open and unclaimed”
areas within their territorial boundaries which is not claimed as private property of a Quileute
individual or family and therefore available for other tribal members to claim or to use (along with their
alien guests) without permission. Based upon their location well within the member-recognized boundaries
of Quileute territory, the prairies listed above were clearly areas of the second type, since they were
used collectively by tribal members without permission and by alien guests with permission.
Quileute Use-ownership. When we read Frachtenberg’s ethnographic description of Quileute pre-contact
land ownership, it is different than ishing grounds and stations. He reports, “Land was neither individual
nor family property. It belonged to the tribe” (p.4:57) but, yet, later he speaks of “fishing grounds
as the inviolable property of individuals” (p. 4:59). This contradiction appears to result from failure to
distinguish between use-ownership and the Western concept of legal private property. Quileute use-ownership
can be characterized as the community-recognized right of a person or family to exclusive control
over property (i.e. a parcel of land or resources). Exclusive control implies that others may not visit the
land or hunt/fish/forage the resources of the land without permission of the use-owners. Thus, while
all land is seen as belonging to the tribe, clear use-ownership rights are recognized by tribal members as
inheritable and continuing for as long as the property use-owners inhabit even seasonally or utilize the
103

property (with the exception of beach rights, which must be validated by periodic potlatching). Use own-
ership in traditional times was a claim to use that was recognized by members of the community.
Quileute Use-ownership based on building or a continuing improvement on the land. Use ownership in
traditional times was usually based on an individual or family building a structure (e.g. house, smokehouse
or drying rack, fishing weir and, later, a garden or simply by improving part of a prairie by burning
it) and their use ownership was then recognized by others as long as that structure stood. There are
several references to this perspective and practice that make it clear:
A man or family, however, was looked upon as the proprietor of the place on which he built his permanent
fishing, digging or hunting houses. These houses could be inherited. A man wishing to build or settle
on a place asked nobody’s permission provided it was occupied by no one else. All fishing grounds,
whether on the beach or on the river, were the property of a family (who built a weir on it) and no one
else could fish there without the consent of the head of family. The hunting grounds up the several rivers
were also family inheritable and indivisible property. (Frachtenberg 1916:4:57)
The property of the river was more or less assumed by the villagers who had a weir there. No other per-
son would come and exploit it unless he had been granted permission. Moreover, a stranger never dared
to fish in another man’s area…Beaches were not communally owned by the Makah and Quileute. The
individual families owned them…the beaches were inherited like property. If a person wanted to acquire
a new beach he had to give a potlatch and announce his intentions. After the potlatch, the beach became
the family property, and others accepted it as such. (Singh 1966:117)
A very explicit expression of this Quileute canon of claiming ownership of unused lands by improving
them (in this case, opening and maintaining a garden on the land), was given by Pettitt.
In 1915, the Quileute absorbed more knowledge concerning the difference between white ownership of
property and the traditional Indian concept that ownership continued only as long as the property was
used. For several years a number of the Quileute had been planting vegetables on a piece of riverbottom
land within the area belonging to Harvey Smith. When Mr. Smith fenced his land and evicted the Indians
from this gardening area, the Indians felt that they were wronged because the land was not in use when
they took it over. The matter was explained, but not to their satisfaction. (Pettitt 1955:29)
With particular reference to claiming prairie areas, Ram Singh gave this statement:
Each family had an occupancy right in a great prairie such as O’took Prairie or Quileute Prairie. The
104

family burned over its part of the prairie in the spring so that dead ferns would be destroyed, giving way
to camas. Generally no outsider would trespass unless he received permission from the family which
“owned” the site. (Singh 1966:25-6)
Quileute Concepts of Alienable and Inalienable Possession. To suggest that the Quileute did not recognize
ownership as exclusive possession overlooks a grammatical feature of their language, which emphatically
recognizes the heritable, ascribed nature of land-use holdings. Quileute grammar requires that
speakers distinguish between things which are “alienably possessed (i.e. things which can be acquired,
lost, given away, or in some way removed from the individual’s ownership) from “inalienable possession”
(i.e. things which are inherited and which cannot be taken away from a person or lost to them). The
category of alienable things are those that one acquires in life, which are often destroyed at one’s death,
e.g. clothing and items of adornment, gear, weapons, and tools. Inalienable things are those ascribed
things which one inherits and which aren’t destroyed at death but are passed on to descendants, e.g.
names, songs, re-incarnated features and spirit powers, one’s house and (surprisingly) dogs, canoes (and
automobiles!) and, especially, rights to tribal and family lands and grounds. The inalienable possessive
marker is -lo or -t’ot (for relatives) and the alienable possession marker is -ya’as. So, one says in Quileute,
for example:
Hix-as kwo’liyot’-lo t’siq’ati. but Hix-as kwo’liyot’-ya’as t’sikbai.
This-is (the) Quileute’s-inalienable land. This-is (the) Quileute’s-alienable basket.
Quileute grammar clearly appears to indicate that traditional-thinking Quileute conceptualized posses-
sion as real and that it implied ownership and control.
Permissive Utilization -vs- Users in common. So, the traditional Quileute can be characterized as recognizing
tribal territory, and the inheritable exclusivity of use-ownership within their territory. Land and
resources that were recognized as use-owned by tribal members could be used by permission of the owners.
Thus, to understand Quileute ownership patterns, we must distinguish between permissive users,
who are those who use lands (e.g. for hunting, fishing, and gathering) with implied permission of those
who have recognized ownership of the land, and users in common, who are those who use lands which
are recognized by members to be tribal open areas that nobody has exclusive ownership of, which can be
used by tribal members (and their alien guests) without asking permission.
Summary: Traditional Quileute Conceptions of Prairie Ownership and Use Rights. Based on the above
definitions, we can suggest precisely how traditional Quileute conceptualized the prairies of their territory.
The Quileute prairies, then, can be characterized as viewed by the Quileute to be open tribal areas
105

which can be used without permission by tribal members (and their alien guests), and that sites on those
prairies may be recognized as inheritably use-owned by tribal members who have built houses or drying
racks on particular sites. This clarifies the tribal access to the prairies, and why these resource areas were
so consistently and completely utilized by Quileute families in traditional times. The prairies were commonly
held tribal resource areas.
THE QUILEUTE CONCEPT OF STEWARDSHIP OF THE PRAIRIES
Stewardship of the Prairies as a Responsibility – Who was Responsible? As we have characterized or
defined Quileute common ownership of the prairies within their traditional lands, we can see that traditional
Quileute thought of the prairies as belonging to all of them. One could argue that if the prairies
belonged to everyone, then, in fact, they really belonged to no one in particular. That brings up a question
with regard to maintenance of the prairies and the stewardship function that motivated the Quileute
old people. If the prairies didn’t belong to anyone in particular, who among the tribal members had the
responsibility to maintain them? First we have to attempt to clarify the concept of stewardship from a
traditional Quileute perspective.
Webster’s definition (New Collegiate Dict.) of steward is “…An officer or employee…on a large estate, to
manage the…concerns, etc…An administrator, or supervisor; a manager.” What is clear from that definition
is that in contemporary English we understand that the concept of a steward and his/her responsibility
(i.e. stewardship) is that the person is in charge of outcomes. Stewardship involves managing things
and making sure that things work out the way they are supposed to. However, when we use the term
stewardship for Quileute “management” of their prairie areas and resources, we will think ethnocentrically
unless we bear in mind two aspects of the traditional Quileute belief system. Firstly, the old people
believed that outcomes were in the hands of the spirits, and that it made the spirits indignant when
mortals arrogated unto themselves responsibility for the outcome of events or for the future in general.
(Powell, Aborig.Value Cont., p.12; Quil. Relig, p.27ff)
Stewardship assumption #1- Outcomes of activities should be in the hands of the spirits. The following
example might illustrate this sense of how traditional Quileute felt that outcomes should be left in the
hands of the spirits:
I asked Hazel Bright, said to be 90 years old, why she felt the Quileute didn’t maintain the welcoming
figures (a T’ist’ilal, “Thunderbird” carving) at the entrance to the village done much earlier by Sixtis
Ward. She answered, “It’s our responsibility to put those traditional figures up. It’s the spirits’ obligation
106

to keep them up.” (paraphrased from the author’s Quileute field notes, 1969)
This aspect of the traditional Quileute perspective, where outcomes were in the hands of the spirits,
relates to individual responsibility. In mainstream contemporary society, individuals are responsible
for the outcomes of most of their actions, so before acting one considers the consequences, weighs the
alternatives, and decides on a course of action. A second example amplifies this issue. It appears that the
traditional Quileute approach may have included a sense of activities as appropriate or not, and that was
the most important consideration.
In 1969, I visited Teddy Hudson at Hoh River, who was carving a canoe in front of his house. I asked
him, “What kind of animal is that head on the front of the canoe?” I was referring to the traditional design
feature on the nose of the canoe, which resembles a head with ears, nose and chin. Teddy responded, “I
don’t know what that is. It’s just that the canoe isn’t made right if that’s not on it.” (paraphrased from the
author’s fieldnotes, 1969)
Ritual has such an aspect, that one need not consider the reason for an action. It is the appropriate thing
to do, so one does it. In the traditional Quileute perspective, such actions will be noted by the spirits,
who can be expected to be pleased and to take responsibility for the consequences. Thus, the old people
may not have perceived themselves as taking on a management role when they engaged in prairie stewardship
activities. There seems to have been an important aspect of “doing the appropriate thing.”
Stewardship Assumption #2 – The need to avoid waste or lack of gratitude for resources. A second
Quileute spirit-based belief was that T’siq’ati, the nature spirit became indignant when nature was
wasted or used without thankful respect and ritual (Ibid. p.33ff; Don’t Spoil the Nat. Env., p.5,10ff). Spirits
offended by waste and disrespect could cause the salmon, elk, and subsistence plantlife to withhold
itself from the Quileute. Thus, each Quileute had an obligation to avoid offending the spirits and each
Quileute would feel inclined to do things that were known to cause the spirits to find favor with the tribe.
Since the prairies were such a critical resource to traditional Quileute subsistence, it was vital to avoid offending
T’siq’ati, who could visit scarcity or famine upon the tribe. It was the obligation of each Quileute
to ingratiate the spirits and avoid offending them. The activities that derive from the perceived need to
placate the spirits would probably be referred to as “religious,” since they have to do with beliefs relating
to the spirit world, ritual, and prayers. There was certainly an overlap between the traditional belief system
and the customary economic system with regard to this area of subsistence. In order to understand
the Old People’s concept of the spirit world, it is useful to internalize three basic assumptions.
The Spirit world was presumed to be Natural rather than Supernatural. Traditional Quileute presumed
107

that spirits were just as natural as the physical world. You simply couldn’t see spirits (unless you had the
gift to do so). This shouldn’t be hard for contemporary readers to understand, since we believe on the
basis of scientific evidence that radio waves are invisible and still are passing imperceptibly through us
on the way to our Walkman receiver. Thus, the term supernatural is inappropriate for the native spirit
world. Nowadays, we feel that there is something miraculous about interventions of the spirit world in
everyday life. Traditional Quileute thought it was natural and ordinary. Some examples which suggest
that traditional people didn’t see interactions with spirit figures as remarkable or “un-ordinary” (paraphrased
from the author’s fieldwork journals at LaPush, 1969-72):
(In August, 1971) Nellie Williams told me that she had been “ghosted by my son“ (‘Bugsy,’ who had died
and was covered by name taboo, so she could not mention him by name). In the dream, he had told her
that he was missing his ball cap and could she also get him some cigarettes. So, she was taking it down
to burn on the beach just east of Lonesome Creek mouth. I asked was she troubled (meaning saddened
or frightened, I guess) by the visit and she looked at me like I wasn’t following the conversation and said,
K’iyiyakwopqalaxw. (“He was just asking for some help”)
(In June of 1970) the old man (Woodruff) and I were speaking to a woman called Laloose at a funeral…
[she] lived around Olympia, claimed to be a descendant of a Chimacum mother. They were speaking
about how powerful the old people used to be when they were young, and that when she was a little girl
she saw a man turn into a wolf. I agreed how real it looks when wolf mask dancers sweep their blanket
in front of their face. And when they lower the blanket they have their mask on and are dancing with
wolf-steps. She said, “No. I saw a man change into a wolf.”
It is probably because the spirit world is considered to be natural that many rituals and references to spirit
beings treat those spirits as if they were motivated by ordinary human appetites and motives, and that
they are subject to being fooled or at least won over by blandishments that are quite transparent.
Humans were “At Cause” rather than “At Effect” with regard to the spirit world. This is a distinction
that is critical to internalize if one is to understand the traditional Quileute worldview. Contemporary
North Americans are largely schooled in the sciences and, for the most part, use an “at effect” perspective.
That means that they presume that most non-social phenomena are governed by predictable natural
processes, e.g. rain is caused by evaporation and condensation of water vapor acted upon by winds and
temperature or that pregnancy happens due to conception caused by an egg being fertilized by sperm,
usually as the result of a sex act. And humans are “at effect” in that the processes are predictable…we
can, in the latter case, for example, engage in activities to keep it from happening, but we cannot change
the process itself. Traditional Quileute saw themselves as “at cause.” That means that they believed that
108

the spirit world paid attention to what humans did, and therefore whatever happened, it was presumed
to be in response to something that humans had done. As an example,
A contemporary person with a scientific perspective and a traditional Quileute are both at home when an
earthquake hits. The contemporary, with an “at effect” viewpoint will probably think, “Ah! They said
we are overdue for a quake. Those tectonic plates keep moving and sooner or later our area was due for
a good lurch. I wonder what the effect of the quake was…any broken windows or things shaken off the
shelves?” The traditional Quileute with the “at cause” perspective would think, “I wonder what I did to
cause that quake…and if not me, who in the community could have offended the spirits to that extent?”
(Don’t Spoil the Environment, p.10)
Such an “at cause” perspective resulted in very different presumptions about the reasons for occurrences
and outcomes than would seem logical to contemporary observers with an “at effect” viewpoint. And,
depending on the worldview different success strategies would seem appropriate. For instance:
If a contemporary, “at effect” person wishes to prepare for running a track and field event, he would eat
wholesome food and work out regularly because muscles develop due to diet and exercise. The traditional
Quileute using an “at cause” approach would’ve assumed that you won races because your spirit
power caused it to happen. Thus, he/she would’ve done what was necessary to achieve and maintain a
proper relationship with his/her t’axilit (spirit power): breaking no taboos, doing rituals that were known
to be pleasing to particular spirits, staying clean and avoiding other effrontery to the spirits. Often that
involved fasting and other activities that today’s coaches would say are detrimental to physical conditioning.
(Ibid.)
This difference in perspective between contemporary “at effect” people and the traditional Quileute “at
cause” viewpoint certainly had effects on the type of stewardship activities that would seem appropriate
for maintenance of the prairies. Nowadays, for example, scientific conservation techniques emphasize
balancing amounts harvested with growth capacity for sustainability, while traditional Quileute logic
presumes that resources will continue to be available in plenty as long as the harvesters do not offend
the spirit world. Contemporary conservation uses biological cause and effect logic to validate maintenance
techniques, restricted access to prairies and regulated exploitation of prairie resources. Traditional
Quileute perspectives handle all of those issues by appropriate ritual and prayers, avoiding taboo behavior
and other activities known to be pleasing to the spirit world.
The effects of taboos, ritual, prayers, song, amulets, personal cleanliness in an “At Cause” world.
Traditional Quileute, using an “At Cause” perspective, felt that the spirits (in particular the great Na-
109

ture Spirit, T’siq’ati) rewarded people who honored them and who avoided behaviors that offended the
spirits. Old Quileute knew that various activities were pleasing to the spirits and kept them in a “right
relationship” with the spirits. Among these were the following:
Attention to taboo – Traditional Quileute knew that the spirits could be displeased by various activities.
Such proscribed actions are said to be taboo behavior. Breaking a taboo, even if it were innocently done
out of ignorance, irritated or angered the spirits with the effect that hunters came home empty handed,
fishers were not lucky, foragers found little to gather, people became ill or had accidents, babies were born
deformed, and natural disasters such as storms and high tides might be expected. Among taboos relating
to the use of prairies for instance, were the following discussed by Frachtenberg:
Pregnant women could not eat or touch t’sikwi (‘fern roots’) because if she did, she would have pains
as if stung by needles. She could not eat or touch fern roots (that were long and skinny), because these
travel like a snake through her body. She could not eat or touch kwala (‘camas’), otherwise she would
have lumps in her belly. Nor could she touch t’lopit (‘cow parsnips’) as these would cause sores on the
woman’s and child’s skin. She could not eat or touch cha’aLowa (‘salmon berries’)…tak’achiL (‘thimbleberry’)…yacht’siLat
(‘berry sprouts’)… etc. Pregnant women in the prairies could not look upon a dying
or dead animal. She could not eat or touch any type of game. Her husband, too, was not allowed to hunt
for any type of game (pp.4:81-3). Children were not allowed to go near the head of a killed elk. (p. 5:37)
Taboos were a clear expression of the “at cause” perspective used by traditional Quileute. The old people
assumed that the spirits knew when taboos were broken and would be offended, causing embarrassment
at best and famine, storms and accidents at worst. The prairies were so important to the Quileute that
they were especially careful to avoid breaking taboos in any activity that related to prairies.
Ritual – We are using the term ritual to refer to actions that were traditionally carried out by the Quileute
in order to precipitate a particular spiritual reaction. We know of some rituals that related particularly to
the use of the prairies, but there were probably many of them. For example, while hunting:
A bear caught and killed with a bow and arrow or caught in a pitfall was taken in(side the lok’wati, ‘hemlock
bark camping shelter’) and a plate full of food placed before him. Earrings and a headband were put
on him and also a few feathers on his head... They also talked to him thus, “You are given these ornaments
so that you may tell your brother to come here also. We will dress him thus likewise.” Then the
meat was cut up (Frachtenberg 5:37-8), or
while hunting elk with dogs [usually done in t’laxaliktiya’at, “elderberry gathering time,” the month
of August, when people went to the prairies and the elk were everywhere and fat] the dogs faces were
110

painted red with ochre. It was believed that this would protect the dogs from wolves, as it was believed
that wolves would not attack dogs whose heads were painted. (op.cit., p.3:47)
Rituals seem to have been facts of economic life for traditional Quileute. They seem to have been consid-
ered necessary in order to assure success in the critical subsistence activities (hunting and gathering) that
were carried on in the prairies.
Prayers – According to Frachtenberg’s field notes, interviewing Wibaxad Jones and Dixon Payne (5:35),
The Quileute prayed to the Sky only. They prayed every morning early and also late at evening. While
praying “talking to the sky” the prayer faced the rising sun or the moon, raised his hands above his head
occasionally, and dipped some water into his hands and blew the water out of his mouth, talking at the
same time to the sky. Of course, in these prayers they asked for (the help of) certain guardian spirits and
they received these, but all praying was addressed to the sky directly.
Lillian Pullen claimed that as a daily ritual and whenever she went foraging, she said a prayer such as the
following, which she felt was the “right thing to do” (Powell, NB 1989, p.10; Conversations with Nature,
p.4ff).
O yix chikw T’siq’ati. Oqalik sa’a. Hac’hikiyatilo’oL.
Oh, great nature spirit. You are here. Help me well.
Kiyi’atilashiLlich xaxi xi’ paqitti’l. Wataxw ti as’o’osto’o ishas xi’ q’iq’it’sa.
Help me now with my work. Thank you for the many berries.
Song – The Quileute used song in various circumstances: as part of a mythic narrative (the songs that
spirit characters sing in the narratives), for entertainment (e.g. courting songs and, later, drinking songs),
and when an individual was communing with his/her guardian spirit (spirit songs). The latter songs
were especially important.
Amulets - Charms were often carried by traditional Quileute to keep them in a right relationship with
their spirit guardians. Hunters, especially, carried amulets, often in a small woven wistay, “power bag.”
According to Frachtenberg:
Every hunter carried in his bag “a certain medicine” (powdered roots, small newborns or fetal forms of
the animal he is hunting, which will draw the animal to the hunter). A hunter having bad luck prayed
111

to the sky and tried to obtain the right medicine, such as baby lizards, baby suckers and baby squirrels.
(5:30)
Hal George told that “people used to carry pretty stones or a bone or shell they found where they had
good luck. They also carried a little carving of their spirit guardian if it was something they’d seen like a
little elk with great big horns” (NB 1978.1, p.40).
Personal Cleanliness - Personal cleanliness was especially important to traditional Quileute. Hal George
expressed it like this: “Bathing was important, especially when you wanted to get in a right relationship
to your spirit power. Scrub your body with fine sand and then coarse until it bleeds. Spirits don’t like
unclean people and won’t come around. They wouldn’t come near you if you weren’t really clean, in
your heart and outside. Lucky people were always scrubbing in streams” (NB 1978.1, p.47). Hal used to
bathe before going hunting. We can see how this practice related to subsistence activities, since a hunter
or gatherer’s success was so clearly related to the help of that person’s taxilit ‘spirit power’.
Summary: Traditional Quileute Perspective on Prairie Stewardship Obligation. For traditional Quileute,
then, we can suggest that stewardship behavior would be appropriate actions and activities that maintain
the prairies and allow them to be exploited without waste or disrespect that would offend the spirits.
This attentiveness to ingratiating the spirit world as a factor in traditional Quileute folk science leaves me
uncertain as to the logic behind stewardship activities in the prairies. It is clear that the old people were
aware of the cause and effect relationship of regular burning to keeping the prairies open. The question is
whether they were primarily motivated by this realization of useful ecological cause and effect or whether
the focal motivation was spiritual. An example might help clarify the distinction.
In 1968, I was invited to go out collecting seagull eggs by Hal George and Harvey James, two old men
who had been to school but who were taLayikila potsoqw, ‘oldtime people.’ We went by outboard boat,
pulling a canoe to an island south of La Push. Reaching the island, where hundreds of seagulls were nesting,
Hal and Harvey got out and, talking appeasingly to the seagulls that were angrily screeching and
diving at them, they walked around the island and stepped on every egg on the island…crunch, crunch,
crunch. Then we got back in the boat and went to Queets for two days, visiting friends of Hal’s. On the
morning of the third day, we went back to the island and, after singing a song of praise to T’siq’ati, collected
every egg on the island until the canoe that we were pulling behind was full of eggs. When I asked
the men, “Why do you break all the eggs?” Their response was that by breaking the eggs first is the only
way that they can be sure that the eggs they actually collect are fresh. But, when I persisted, “There won’t
112

e any seagulls next year(!),” Hal looked at me and essentially said, “Oh, Jay, you’re such a Whiteman.
Don’t you realize that if there are seagulls next year, it won’t be because of some biological cause and effect
but because we are good people for the spirits to send the kwalel (‘seagulls’) to.” (paraphrased from
Quileute NB#2(1969) p.101ff)
Such an explicit statement of the cultural logic underlying Quileute aboriginal folk-scientific reasoning
makes us insecure, presuming that even the most basic assumptions of contemporary conservation can be
applied to the logic underlying aboriginal cultural patterns. Based on the ethnographic record it seems
that traditional Quileute responded to interconnected spiritual and folk-scientific understandings, resulting
in a satisfyingly logical technology (a set of tools and techniques for maintaining their livelihood and
caring for the world). Since the spiritual world was perceived as natural and real, it made sense to relate
obligation to the spirits, who were responsible for outcomes. But, traditional Quileute were also responsible
for the other living things of the world, which they relied on for subsistence. This interconnection
of obligations seems to have provided the basis for the logic of traditional Quileute stewardship of the
prairies.
TRADITIONAL QUILEUTE PRAIRIE STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES
Prairie Stewardship Activities. The Quileute clearly engaged in prairie stewardship activities. Some of
these involved prairie maintenance; some of them related to conservation of prairie resources. All seem
to have been validated by traditional natural science, a set of natural generalizations and spiritual rationales.
That these were recognizable patterns to the Quileute is indicated by the fact that there were
particular names for these activities:
(a) Burning of the prairies, hokwoyakw, “prairie burning.”
(b) Selective burning to leave some resources (e.g. crabapple trees) unharmed.
(c) Taking (only) what the T’siq’ati, the Nature Spirit, provides, piLil’al, “taking our enough.”
(d) Restricting utilization to avoid over-exploitation,
(e) Rituals for assuring that the Great Nature and personal spirit powers would provide.
Burning of the Prairies as a Stewardship Activity. .
1) The family burned over its part of the prairie in the spring so that dead ferns would be destroyed, giving
way to camas (Ram Singh 1966:25).
113

2) Each family had a part of a prairie where its members could go to dig roots. The prairies were burnt
and weeds were kept under control by means of fire (Ram Singh, p. 11). The Indians who dug roots in
prairies burned over such sites in order to give useful roots a chance to grow instead of weeds and ferns.
They took precautions not to burn the surrounding trees and bushes, and burned the prairies section by
section. Their methods of fire control were so effective that in the Olympic Peninsula, except for a small
area of forest near Little Prairie, none of the forest surrounding a prairie shows any sign of fire. (Ram
Singh 1966:112).
3) Bracken fern grows on the “prairies” and burned over places, especially in the middle upland area.
The burning of this fern year by year was what kept up these prairies and extended their area. The
Indians burned the prairies over for the purpose of clearing out the area so they could shoot deer and elk
when they came to feed on the young sprouts. The prairies, about ten in number, probably were started
as camping sites, which were gradually extended by the annual burnings (Reagan 1923:203).
4) The Indians burned the ferns for the purpose of clearing out the prairies so they could shoot the deer
and elk when they come to feed on the young fern sprouts (verbatim repeat of #3 above, Reagan 1934:56).
5) Thought they were going to burn the prairie because his father talked about it a lot and he was excited
and a little scared about a big fire, but there was no fire. They didn’t burn it that year. The whitemen
didn’t like them setting fires in the prairies. Later he saw them burning part of Sat’ayaqw (Quillayute
Prairie), but they only burned a small area, burned when the grass was damp and it didn’t make a big fire
(Bill Penn).
6) It was burned every fall to encourage further growth. Mark Willliams was trying to burn the prairie
(hokwalillowot, “burning the prairie) and get matches from a Whiteman. (Hal George, p.44).
7) Yes, they used to burn both prairies so they could get the little bulbs at the bottom like onions. They
would come up after the burn you see and burning (sic). But the principle reason they burned them was
to get the rabbits and things that lived around in this tall grass (Royal Pullen).
8) The Indians knew how to handle fire and it never got away (Mattie Howeattle).
There is now considerable interest in the aboriginal practice of maintaining the prairies by burning. There
seems little doubt that the prairies would not have existed if the native people had not burned them
regularly to keep them open. Both Swan [1861] and Frachtenberg [2:46] mention that the prairies were
surrounded by stands of great hemlock, suggesting that the prairies, as well, would’ve been forested with
114

hemlock except for the process of regular burning. It may be worthwhile, though repetitive, to include the
general and inclusive statement about prairie burning from the cultural Resources Module of the Sitkum
and South Fork Calawah Watershed Analysis (p. 2.1-15).
Although Quileute use of fire in maintaining the prairies and some other wetland collecting sites is
inarguable, the ethnographic record is not totally clear about the details of traditional burning strategies.
Albert Reagan [1934, p.56] does not tell what time of year the prairies were burned, but writes “The burning
of (the bracken) fern year by year was what kept up the prairies…The Indians burned the ferns for
the purpose of clearing out the prairies so they could shoot deer and elk when they came to feed on the
young fern fronds.” Ram Singh mentions, “The (particular) family burned over its part of the prairie in
the spring so that dead ferns would be destroyed, giving way to camas” [p.25]. Hal George remembered
that the prairies were burned, on the occasions that he witnessed it during the 1890s, in the lunar month
of T’saq’it’sa, “no berries time,” late September in the season of Early Fall (the Quileute recognized five
seasons, including Early and Late Fall). By then, families had already foraged for roots and berries and
the grasses were dry.
Bill Penn remembers that his elders did not burn the prairie at the end of their camping on the prairie,
which was probably in the later summer, although he does make the point that only a small area was
burned. This concurs with Ram Singh that the prairie was burned section by section, and the implication
that, since individual families had rights to sections of prairies, each family would burn their own area.
Both Ram Singh and Mattie Howeattle mention that the old people were skilled and careful not to allow
the fires to get out of control. Only Bill Penn suggests a strategy of setting fires when the grass was damp
as a means of controlling the blaze.
Selective Burning to Leave some Resources Unharmed. Little is known about the degree to which the
practice of prairie burning took into account tactics to leave important resources unharmed. For instance,
many prairies included stands of crabapple trees, which do not survive burning. Burns were made in
such a way as to avoid injuring these important features of the prairies. The same is probably true of
cranberry bushes and other plants. It is certainly an issue in the maintenance of the prairies.
Taking Only as Much as is Needed. No ethnographer can conduct research on the economic practices of
contemporary Quileute without realizing that it is a strongly held continuing community value to take
only what is needed from the natural world and to avoid wastefulness. These statements from Lillian
Pullen clarify what they mean by “taking what one needs.”
1) I never waste what I take or what somebody gives me. We’re only supposed to take what we need. If
115

you waste what you are given, you won’t get as much as you need next time. We say, Wa t’akw dokwlita
(Don’t waste [said to a woman]) and my gramma told me that again and again when I was a girl
(NB1993-4, p.62).
2) We only take as much as we need. When I’m going out, I always have a little prayer for guidance to
go here and there and do this and that. It’s possible that …you could take too much and be wasteful and
ruin it for everybody or the kids could get sick (NB 1978, p.89).
3) We never waste like the hokwat’ (lit. ‘drifting house people,’ Euro-Americans, were called that because
their sailing ships were thought to be drifting houses by the early Quileute). That’s the reason that our
people are so lucky. T’siq’ati knows that we are good people to be caught by.
However, as we mentioned above, the traditional concept of “only what is needed” may include amounts
sufficient to allow ceremonial or personal generosity on a dramatic scale. Furthermore, there appears to
have been a traditional assumption that the spirit world would make it clear how much was needed by
causing fish, animals, plantlife, and materials to make themselves available to Quileute in the amounts
that were really needed. An example is the following, paraphrased in fieldnotes from an account by Hal
George:
Fish and animals, especially sea mammals (seals and whales) and elk give themselves to men in the
quantity that they are really needed. Old man Harold Johnson, Ta’axawil, told him that when he was
young he was hunting and a bunch of elk just came up and looked at him. He shot one, and then he shot
another and then another. They didn’t move. And he knew that they were sent by his Kit’lakwal (Elkdance
society) spirit. So he shot them all. He used that meat to give a big naming feast for his nephews,
to get them initiated into the elk song society, Kit’lakwal. (Powell, NB 1978:19)
Contemporary Quileute speak nowadays of taking only as much as is needed, implying or overtly claiming
that this was done to avoid a negative impact on the environment by over-fishing, over-hunting or
over-harvesting. They suggest that this conservation-approach was followed by the old people, as well.
However, Old Man Fred Woodruff once attempted to clarify the difference between contemporary and
traditional Quileute views as follows:
These guys (current Quileute young people) are always talking about culture. They don’t know about
culture. In the old times there was so much of everything we never thought about taking too much. We
filled up a wagon full of ya’likala (razor clams), and when it was full we got another wagon. We filled up
the smelt nets until the canoes sank. But, when we took something, we used it or gave it away or sold it.
116

We never left it to waste. Them old people was like that. (Powell, NB 1969:1:33)
According to Mr. Woodruff, the traditional Quileute sense of dokwlita (to waste something by taking
more than one will use) was an offense to the spirits rather than an upset to the balance of nature. Although
we are attempting to clarify a historic, traditional perspective, we are lucky to have other extant
statements that give us insights into this aboriginal worldview. For example, when the linguist Manuel
Andrade visited LaPush in 1928, Jack Ward offered to dictate a speech with a message to non-Indians if
Andrade would publish it in his book. The speech, called “Don’t Spoil the Country” seems to use this
talaykila (old-time Quileute) perspective. However, Andrade had had little exposure to Quileute culture
and he provides a translation that uses the perspective of Western scientific environmentalism rather
than viewing Ward’s statements from the viewpoint of the traditional Quileute worldview. The following
excerpts from Mr. Ward’s speech are provided with Andrade’s translation and an interpretive comment
by Eleanor Wheeler (a Quileute woman with an extremely traditional viewpoint), that gives us an insight
into the Quileute traditional perspective, which she presumed Ward would’ve been using.
(Jack Ward original) ItcaqLasqalo sa’a luwo hat’citaLetili tcaqLaqalou kiya’atilawociL xe’ itsaqpaqetik
hequ xo’o yix ot’oqu t’ot’sa luba’ po’oq. (2) Tso’ot’e sa’a xaba t’atca xe’ t’sixa xwa’
itcaqayilakiLt’oqu kiyaxat tciali xe’ xabat’so’ oxo’o yix tas t’siqati yix hetca’wa taxu helokiL. Xe’
tciLqwatoqu hexat xwa’ tsiLqa’axw xwa’ tsiLqwat’oqu... (3) Itso La dakiL taxu wait’coli s yokiL
wa’alici uxwat’so’ o xe’ qabaLuwat qale xe’ k’eki: hawayicka hexat s xabat’so’ o xe’ qabaLuwat…
(4) ALa dakiL yix hokwat’ qaxayootaqwa …pawa- Lakskeda LaxuLe toqowa xwa’ t’Laatilayaxu xwa’
t’Laxataqwayo’.
(Andrade translation) Thus, we bring this message of good-will to you, wishing to be of service to you in
whatever work you undertake in this land where we Indians were born and raised. (2) That is the reason
we all should know the right way to act, helping each other to observe conservancy of the products of
land, as it belongs to our children as well as to our children’s children. (3) Otherwise, all the animals of
the woods may disappear, such as the elk, deer, and others. (4) But, you White people are wasteful…acting
wantonly, persisting in breaking the laws of the lawgivers [ed. i.e. the lawmakers of the state game
laws and game wardens].
(Wheeler interpretive comment) He [Ward] says to the Whitemen, “So I’m giving you the good word so
you can be successful because, unless the spirits like you, things never work out; and we were born and
raised here, so we know what the spirits don’t like and what wins them over.” (2) And he says, “So I’m
helping you know how to survive around here, because the spirits can make it really tough if you take
more than you need and waste it.” That’s what he’s saying. Don’t waste the things T’siq’ati gives you or
117

he’ll take it away. And not only from you but from your kids and your kids’ kids. (3) If you waste food,
sure enough you’ll lose your luck. Maybe the whole village, that’s what the old people thought, that
unless you’re right with the spirits the animals will just go somewhere else. That applies to everything
we get from the land. (4) And he says, “Them Whitemen waste a lot all the time and aren’t grateful in
the ways the taxelits (spirit powers) like you to be grateful. That makes the spirits upset, mad enough to
ruin the whole country for everybody. You can’t disrespect the great t’laxa’a. The t’laxa’a is the great plan
of T’siq’ati that tells what is natural for each living thing: people, animals, fish, trees, birds. Everything.
Break the t’laxa’a and the spirits make the fishermen go broke, the hunters get skunked, the people go
hungry. That’s what Ward was saying.
Mrs. Wheeler gives a very different sense of what Ward was trying to say than the message implied in
Andrade’s translation. Mrs. Wheeler presumed that Ward was using a traditional Quileute perspective.
We are grateful for such an eloquent expression of her people’s viewpoint on taking what one needs
from the environment. (See J. Powell, “Don’t Waste the Environment” and Jay Powell and Dell Hymes,
“Don’t Waste the Environment – An Interpretive Re-consideration of a Quileute Discourse on the Natural
World”)
Restricting Utilization to those with Occupancy Rights to avoid over-exploitation. It seems clear that the
Quileute recognized that restricting utilization in the prairies was a conservation issue that maintained
the valued resources of the prairies. According to Ram Singh:
Each Quileute family had an “occupancy right” in a great prairie such as Quileute Prairie. The danger
of excessive exploitation of food resources seems to have been recognized for (only) a few species. The
restriction of hunting or gathering food in a particular territory to the members of one’s own group or
family was at least partly motivated by the realization that production by outsiders would diminish the
available supply (p. 29). There were some other kinds of property which were owned by the individual
family. The prairies were such examples. The private ownership of prairies was based on the principle
that a person owned whatever he had made or improved by means of labor. Each family had a part of
a prairie where its members could go to dig roots. The prairies were burnt and weeds were kept under
control by means of fire. All of these acts involved labor. (p. 112)
Ceremonial Life Calculated to Keep the Prairies Producing.
(a) Giving the spirits credit. Traditional Quileute gave credit to T’siq’ati, the nature spirit by invoking
that name orally. Hal George made that point while generally discussing that life was not without
hard work in the old days.
118

They think that it was easy, but we had to work hard. Sure, the talaykila pots’oqw (old people) just gath-
ered what the great nature provided. They’d say, “T’siq’ati, t’siq’ati, t’siq’ati” (It’s the nature spirit, nature
spirit, nature spirit) when they were picking or eating food. (Powell NB 1978:1:68)
(d) Feeding the dead. One of the ceremonials still maintained by the Quileute is alitsish xwa’ loba’a,
“feeding the dead.” A plate of food is burned while remembering someone who has died. The ritual
is believed to both insure that the ghost has sufficient food (in the underworld) and to keep the ghost
interceding with the spirit world on behalf of the living. There is sometimes also the assumption that the
ghost will frequent the area where food is burned in its name, exerting its good offices to influence the
spirit world in favor of the living.
Big Bill remembers lots of the names and stories about his ancestors because they talked about the old
people when he was young. The old people put aside food for the ancestors and would burn it, especially
up in the prairies because that would keep the ghosts up there making things go right. Food that you
burned for the dead was multiplied and kept the ghosts eating well ( Powell NB 1978:1: 61).
(c) Avoidance of tabooed behavior in the prairies. Traditional Quileute believed that various behav-
iours would offend the spirit world. Most taboos had to do with avoidance of activities: not doing, look-
ing at, eating or touching certain things at particular times. We have already enumerated a few of the
taboos, which Arthur Howeattle told to Frachtenberg, having to do with things done or harvested in the
prairies. Attention to taboo interdictions was mentioned by Sarah Woodruff Hines in a thoughtful comment
relating to an early (c.1920) trip to harvest in the prairies.
We got there early 6:30, 7:00. Aubrey and Henry Taylor took us over in a big canoe to above K’i’il (Rialto
Beach). Worked, too. We were all barefoot except Ida Taylor, who carried her shoes. Some had digging
sticks. Mary had a bunch of k’woyokws (digging sticks) in her baxwuy (burden basket, usually with
tumpline) that weren’t sticks, they were cut off elk horn tips. It was easy to dig if you stuck it down in the
right place. We mostly dug t’sikwi’ (bracken and sword fern roots) and la’it’ay (clover roots). Effie (sister,
Eli Ward’s wife) couldn’t dig t’sikwi’ because she was pregnant. Everybody laughed. I don’t think they
really believed it would hurt the baby. But they thought t’siq’ati didn’t like it, so she just went and dug
more la’it’ay. The baskets got real heavy. (Powell NB 1978:75)
Other Maintenance activities relating to prairies. For much of Quileute life, it was presumed that the
natural world would, with the help of favorably disposed spirits, maintain itself. Thus, the old people
spoke of few activities, which involved their intentional intervention in the course of the natural world.
Among these are the following:
119

(a) Trail maintenance. Keeping up the trail to the prairies other than simply by use. According to
Ram Singh [p.25], “The trail to a prairie was kept up by the people who used it.” Other trails resulted
from the wear and tear of use, but those to the prairie were actually maintained. It is clear from Hal
George’s comment below that to maintain a trail was a departure from the Quileute old people’s usual
patterns.
Now, the old people said bitsatsqal yix t’siq’ati (the land takes care of itself) and that means everything.
They didn’t plant gardens or build fences to keep deer out. They didn’t make la’wqwol or lotoqwli
(roads/trails or bridges) never chopped down trees to cross rivers. (Powell NB 1978:71)
QUILEUTE MYTHIC REFERENCES TO THE PRAIRIES
The Prairies in Quileute Mythic Narrative- The importance of prairies to the traditional Quileute is ap-
parent in their many mentions in Quileute myth and in the degree to which the prairies were considered
to be the haunt and home of spiritual beings. Because spirit powers were considered to be both near
and responsible for the many benefits to be reaped from the prairies, the old people felt an obligation to
demonstrate their gratitude for the gifts and enabling powers. Thus, the prairies were places for prayer,
cleansing and ritual. And, in return the people were able to see the results in their success at hunting
and foraging. The old people felt that spiritual approval and assistance was most clearly visible through
successful hunting and provision gathering. If you pleased the spirit powers, they made you skillful and
successful. And, since the hunting and gathering done in the prairies was critical to making it through
the annual cycle, the spirits were seldom out of mind while camping in the prairies or making foraging
daytrips. As we know, the spirit world was natural and real, but simply couldn’t be seen. The old people
had heard the stories and learned the traits of the various prairie spiritual beings since childhood. A visit
to the prairies was a trip to a powerful part of their territory where unpredictable things could happen
and the unexpected was not surprising. As Hal George would smile and say, “Hixas k’itaqli xaba okil chi
yaqw. K’idiloqwalich chikwliqaqlas o cha’a yaqwo’wa.” (It’s different up on the prairie. You feel-strange
too-greatly-different in the prairie.)
Quileute cultural narrative: myth, legend and folkloric accounts - In this section I attempt to discuss what
we know about the mythic history of the Quileute prairies that explained their special spiritual qualities
to the old people’s satisfaction. I will be treating only myth that refers to prairies or is located at least
partially in prairies. The cultural narratives that we refer to were primarily recorded from the following
sources.
120

1) [AR] Albert Reagan. “Some Myths of the Hoh and Quillayute Indians,” Transactions of the Kansas
Academy of Sciences, 1935. 40 stories recorded while Reagan was sub-agent and teacher at LaPush between
July 1, 1905 and Oct.15, 1909.
2) [R&W] Albert Reagan and L.V.W. Walters. “Tales from the Hoh and Quileute,” Journal of American
Folklore, Vol. 46, #182 [Oct 1933]. 52 stories, all but seven of which were collected between 1905-9 by
Reagan. Walters edited them for publication and, “to have a few type myths to use as a standard of the
Quileute English-speaking narrative style,” he went to LaPush in 1932 and collected seven stories from
Hal George. Just before publication, Walters had discovered that Andrade was preparing Quileute Texts
for publication, so he dropped nine stories “to avoid needless duplication” since the stories “were almost
identical versions” of those published by Andrade. This suggests the degree to which Quileute mythic
narratives were consistent from teller to teller.
(3) [QT] Manuel Andrade, Quileute Texts. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 12
[1931]. Contains the Quileute and English (side by side) versions of 70 Quileute mythic, legendary and
folkloric texts. 26 were collected by Andrade in 1928 and 44 of them were transcribed by Leo Frachtenberg
in 1915-6 and, later, edited by Andrade for inclusion in this corpus.
4) Oral narratives as told to the author by Sarah Hines, Fred Woodruff, William “Big Bill” Penn, Hal
George, Harvey James, Nellie Williams, Rosie Black, Eleanor Wheeler (Kaikaka), Pansy Hudson, Lela
Fisher, Herb Fisher, Helen Lee, Lillian Pullen, Chris Morganroth II & III, Calvin George, Porky Payne
It is, at first consideration, surprising that so many Quileute myths take place in prairies. The prairies are
a very small part (less than 1%) of Quileute traditional territory. Yet, no less than ten of the 40 myths in
Reagan [1935] take place in prairies. These stories are focal in Quileute cultural narrative because they do
what powerful oral traditions do: they explain the basis for customs and values and they account for the
origin of natural phenomena. For instance, Quileute traditional stories give us the following answers:
1) The origin of the Quileute in Quileute Country- Q’wati, the Changer who went around at the
Time of Beginnings transforming the natural features of the world and creating the differences between
the species caused the wolves who inhabited the Quillayute River area to be changed into the ancestors of
the Quileute (see QT, p.82).
2) The origin of the prairies of Quileute Territory- T’istilal, called Thunderbird, formed the prairies
by catching whales to take back to his lair on the Blue Glacier or Mt. Olympus, and set the whale down to
rest part way home. As soon as it hit the ground, the whale flopped and fought, leveling all the trees for
121

some distance. These level places became the prairies of Quileute country (see R&W, p. 320, AR, p.63).
3) The Origin of the line of rocks in Beaver Prairie- T’istilal the Thunderbird and Mimlos Whale
(Mimlos is the Chinook Jargon word for “to die” or “to kill,” i.e. Killer Whale) thrashed and fought in the
area that is now Beaver Prairie. Mimlos Whale was killed and a group of upriver Quileute discovered the
whale and butchered it. They left the bones, which became the line of rocks in the prairie, visible to this
day. The people also died for the effrontery to take a whale that didn’t belong to them (See AR, p.63).
4) How did the practice of burning the prairies come into being- The Changer, Q’wati, introduced
burning the prairies by tricking the Quileute women to start prairie fires using torches. “Some young
women went to the prairie to dig camas. Each wore a headband, from the front of which there extended a
long pointed stick about two feet in length. On the other end of each stick there were tied pitch shavings
and the whole formed into a torch. They had these torches lit. Q’wati mocked the shy girls, who fell flat
on the ground to hide themselves, and they accidentally started the big ferns on fire. The whole prairie
burned. Q’wati jumped into the river, but it was boiling hot and he jumped out (See R&W, p.308).
5) Why the weather is warm on the prairies and there are lots of rabbits there- Doqwis, the Rabbit,
went up the river and Ka’olat, the cold East Wind was busy freezing the world, as was his wont. Rabbit
was crafty enough to kill East Wind when he tried to steal a fish from Rabbit’s canoe. Rabbit hit Ka’olat
a terrible blow with his club and split him like a chunk of ice and then scattered him to the other four
winds, who moderated the temperatures. Rabbit stayed upriver in the prairies (See AR, p.77).
6) The origin of the qit’lakwal, elk hunting spirit power, in the prairies and how to get it- At the
Time of Beginnings, an ixwalola (medicine man) tried to discover whether it would be appropriate for
people to hunt the elk (who, after all are descendants of a being who had once been a man and had a
soul). In the story, the human goes questing and finds a spirit being who gave him a headband and he
discovers that if he gets a spirit power, elk will be unable to resist him. It is the beginning of the elk hunters’
song society, which often met in Forks Prairie.
7) Why the Quileute sing and pray in gratitude to T’siq’ati, the Great Nature Spirit- The Quileute
learned that if they didn’t express gratitude to the Great Nature Spirit for providing them with the gifts
of the natural world and the skill and luck to avail themselves of these products, they would either be
stricken down or have no further luck. They learned this while bringing a whale to shore “but while towing
it they did not sing and pray to Se-kah-til, them other earth.” And they all died (See AR, p.69).
122

8) Why the Quileute honor the deer (and other large mammals) that they kill in the prairies- The
Quileute learned that if they did not express gratitude and appreciation to the mammals that they killed
in the prairies, that they would lose their luck in hunting. In the myth of Deer and Wolf, “a mother deer
and a mother wolf went to the prairie to get fern roots to make into flour.” The mother wolf killed and
ate the mother deer. From that day on, the other deer warned each other whenever the wolf was near
and the wolf had a difficult time finding food. The Quileute honor the deer that submit themselves to the
Quileute hunters (See AR, p.60).
9) Why the Quileute are endogamous, marrying someone from their own tribe- A Quileute woman
sleeping on the prairie wishes to marry and that night her suitor comes and takes her away to live in a
prairie on the other side of the sea. After years she becomes homesick and returns to Quileute country
with her husband to see her parents. She decides not to return and her husband has to return to his country
alone. “That is why the Quillayutes try to marry women of their own tribe” (AR, p.60).
10) Why the Quileute traditionally practiced the levirate, widows marrying a male kinsman of their
dead husband- The first husband of the woman in the story above died. She was pregnant and unable
to feed herself in the isolated place on the immense prairie. “Finally one day when she almost ready to
die, there came a rap at the door, and a young man entered the house…He said, ‘This place belonged to a
relative of mine.’ Upon hearing her story, the young man said, ‘We live at the other end of this large prairie.
I am single. Come with me to my house and be my wife.’” This practice provides a patrilineal social
mechanism for a family to keep the children of their son in the event that the son dies. Rather than their
son’s widow taking their grandchildren away when she returns to her own family, that widow traditionally
marries a brother of her dead husband or some other kinsman of her husband’s. This custom, called
the “Levirate” was common among traditional Quileute, and had its origin in the prairies (AR, p.59).
Unexpected things happen in the prairies. There is a sense of the prairies as the threshold to the other
world, a quality where the line between the visible world and the invisible (spiritual) world is less defined.
In the Quileute cultural narratives, spiritual beings seem to appear often on the prairies. A few
examples are the following occurrences which, albeit, are recognized to have happened in myth times but
exemplify the liminal nature of the prairies:
1) A myth starts: Two young ladies were digging fern roots on the prairies. Night came on and they
retired, but did not go to sleep. As they reclined on their mats they talked and talked the hours away. As
they were conversing, one of them looked up into the heavens and said: “I wish I had that bright star. I
would marry him. Hardly had the words been spoken when two suitors from the starry vault came to
visit them. As soon as they came, one of them said to the lady who had made the wish: “I am the person
123

you love. Come with me.” The suitor was, in fact, a heavenly being and took the woman from the prairies
to the heavens. Stories such as this made it clear to traditional Quileute that in the prairies you had to
be careful what you wished for. (AR, p.54)
2) A myth starts: A long time ago two girls went to the prairies to dig ferns for flour. As they went
they passed by an open space in the woods where the decapitated head of a young man was suspended
on a pole-stake…The young lady remarked: I wish that man had been my husband. He has a good
looking face. I wish he could be my husband now.” They went on to the prairie… they dug fern roots
and piled them in piles to dry…. (they were tired and, that night, soon after they had gone to sleep, there
came a rap on the wall. “I am here. I am the man you want to marry.” The suitor took the girl across the
sea to a different world. Again, the prairies are places where women are enabled to wish for their lovers
and, magically, their dreams come true (AR, p.58).
3) A myth starts: Once there was a tribe living by the beach. The chief of this tribe had one daughter
and they thought a lot of her. In her sleep, this daughter would dream about a dog, a handsome dog.
When she grew older, she would go out on the prairie and dig roots for the family. One day she met
this dog she dreamed about so much. The girl became pregnant and gave birth to a batch of puppies.
She moved away and, alone, tried to forage to feed the dog children. One day she discovered the dog
children were ordinary babies who were wearing dog costumes. So she snuck in and burned the puppy
costumes and the children were ordinary people ever since. By now, it is no surprise that when a girl
dreamed of a handsome dog as lover, she would find him in the prairie (R&W, p.304).
4) A myth says: Two virgins came along the trail going to the prairie to gather fern roots. They
heard a child crying. It was Q’wati. He was lonely because no woman would have him for a husband.
So, he transformed himself into a baby and hid himself on the trail leading to the prairie, where the women
found him. They felt sorry for the baby, so the older girl took it and raised it. When Q’wati had grown
into a man, she became his wife and they went back and forth over the earth together doing good to all
people. In this story it is apparent that the prairies are a place where spirit beings can have their own way
with the mates they long to have (R&W, p.309).
It is interesting that people, especially women, who are depicted in myths as doing right and avoiding
selfishness or evil actions are often portrayed as digging roots in the prairies. It’s as if someone who is
digging roots in the prairies couldn’t be evil or troublesome. Here are some examples:
1) An old time Quileute happens upon an evil medicine man who killed people with his doctoring
power. He kills the evil medicine man and goes home. The followers of the evil shaman descend on his
124

house to retaliate, “but he stood them off. So, then they went to the prairie to kill his wives, who were
digging fern roots to make into flour. On seeing the armed men coming, the women loaded their baskets
with roots and started for home so quietly as to make believe that they thought that everything was alright.”
In this story, the good man and his wives prevail. After all, the women were digging roots in the
prairies (AR, p.70).
However, not everyone who digs roots in the prairies is upright. The Quileute woman of the woods – the
kelp-haired child snatching cannibal, Dask’iya, is regularly portrayed as digging camas while she plans
her next abduction of innocent children.
Dask’iya was a giantess. She went around eating little children. Q‘wati went to where she was digging
camas on Quillayute Prairie. He offered to carry her baskets, and hung one in front and one on his back.
Then he started running, eating handfuls of camas as he ran. Dask’iya chased him and when she stopped
for a drink, Q’wati changed into a minnow and swam where she was drinking. She swallowed the minnow,
which immediately changed into a whale inside her stomach. That was the end of the evil Dask’iya
(one of her many ends) (R&W, p.312).
When a man encounters a being in the prairies, it could either be a good or an evil one. It is up to the
man to be circumspect. For instance, in the following story, a man, Tuscobuk, survives a meeting with an
evil stranger because he is wary:
Tuscobuk meets a stranger in Forks Prairie who has been killing Quileute hunters and intends to kill
him. The stranger has been killing hunters by trading rubbery “magic’ arrows with the hunters and then
changing into an immense elk that, unhurt by the hunters’ rubbery arrows, kills them all. Well, tuscobuk
is wary and doesn’t trade arrows, nor does he stand behind the tree that the stranger suggests. And,
when the gigantic elk comes along and charges the tree, expecting to find Tuscobuk, he is disappointed.
Then, Tuscobuk jumps out from hiding and hits the elk with four yewwood arrows. The elk dies and
Tuscobuk skins it and throws the hide up into the sky, where light shining through the arrow holes makes
the constellation Cassiopeia’s Chair (R&W, p.326).
There are also a few Quileute myths relating to the prairies that seem impossible or uncomfortable to interpret.
These stories have images that connote meaning for us, but the story does not lead to an obvious
message. For instance:
1) Q’wati Gives the Women Bees – Q’wati came along the trail by the prairie with a basket swung at
his back. He was singing, “I’ve got lots of elk meat in my basket.” He was singing this for he was passing
125

a place in the prairie where several young women were digging fern roots. He really had a box of bees in
his basket. The girls ran out shouting, “Oh, Q’wati, give us the meat.” Q’wati told them to hold out their
baskets and look the other way, which they did. Then he let out the bees and they stung the girls, who
rolled on the ground and screamed. Q’wati grinned and disappeared (R&W, p.308).
Question of Interpretation: By now we understand that women who are digging roots in the prairie connote
women innocent of bad intentions. We also know that Q’wati can be presumed to be helping the
Quileute in his mythic escapades, even though he is prone to being sexually stimulated by unescorted
women. An analysis which simply suggests that this is a myth which explains the existence of bees in the
prairies seems to overlook all of the detail which could arguably be sexual imagery. At this point, it is a
myth about the prairies with familiar motifs of innocent women digging fern roots.
There were also prairies in the Quileute Land of the Dead. According to Frachtenberg [5:33]: There are
prairies in the very heart of the underworld…and beyond this is a prairie full of strawberries, where they
could pick and eat berries. It is clear that the daily lifeways of the traditional Quileute included knowledge
and use of the prairies so comprehensively, that prairie lore was imprinted on their cognitive maps,
on their worldview and on their cultural logic. This report has attempted to articulate some of the traditional
aspects of Quileute prairie knowledge, belief and use.
APPENDIX: A PARTIAL PERSENTATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE TRADITIONAL
USE OF THE PRAIRIES OF QUILEUTE COUNTRY
Note: Sources are chronologically arranged according to the date of publication or notation (in the case of
unpublished anthropological fieldnotes). This is a partial list and includes primarily material that is not
available on library shelves. Excerpts from the author’s fieldnotes are presented throughout the body of
the text; and, they have generally not been explicitly presented below except for quotes from Sarah Hines,
William “Big Bill” Penn and Hal George.
Swan, James G. From A cruise in the Sarah Newton (July 18-August 24, 1861), Washington Standard, 5 &
12 October 1861. Reprinted in Almost out of the World, William A Katz, ed., Wash. St. Hist. Soc. [1971].
Swan [1818-1900] came to the Northwest in 1852, one of the first Euro-Americans settled in Shoalwater
Bay; 1859-66, lived in Neah Bay as agent and teacher. He visited the Quileute at least three times: (1) in
1855, when the mail-steamer Southerner was wrecked at the mouth of the river, (2) on the cruise aboard
126

the Sarah Newton in 1861, and (3) in 1879, when he and Chas. Willoughby met the Quileute chiefs
Xawishat’a, Tlakishka, and Taxa’wil at the mouth of the Quillayute River, all of whom signed an affidavit
that they had been misled by the treaty negotiators in 1856.
Swan describes the location and size of the “cammass” prairie in sufficient detail (7 miles from the mouth
of the river, on the north side of the river, and bounded on the south by a steep hill about 100 feet high,
about 4 ½ miles long by ¾ mile wide) for us to recognize it as the Quillayute Prairie (Sat’ayaqw). He
remarks its openness and the immense ferns. Finally, he notes that there was a well-defined trail that led
into the prairie, suggesting that it had considerable thoroughfare. Finally, it is of interest that the chiefs
decided, of all places in their territory, to take Swan to the prairie that contained the village’s most accessible
camas beds.
[Part One]
I wrote you, my dear sir, that I purposed a cruise on the coast during the past summer, as far south as
Quillehuyt River. I will now give your readers the result of my observation.
…..When the tide rose, we pulled the schooner into the river and anchored in ten feet of water near the
Indian village. The Indians immediately came on board in great numbers, all friendly and very curious.
I perceived among them some of the Quenaiults, old acquaintances, Mackamus, on the chiefs. He soon
made me acquainted with Hawelatl, head chief of the Quillehuyts, who invited Capt. Beynon and myself
on shore, where he conducted us through the lodges of his village.
The following day we passed in trading and on Thursday, August 1st, I made arrangements with Howelatl
and Wackamus to accompany me up the river to Cammass Prairie…..
QUILLEHUYT RIVER. The Quillehuyte River is a fine little stream, varying from fifty to two hundred
yards in width and with a depth of eight to twelve feet of water…. About a mile up from the bend of the
river (which looks from the ocean as if it was the real entrance), we came to a rapids extending some 300
feet at the head of which is a lodge and a strong weir for taking salmon…. We proceeded up the stream
three-fourths of a mile, when we stopped at the mouth of a small brook and all went ashore to walk, as
the current here was two (sic) strong for us to row any further although canoes go miles beyond. The
Indians requested me to drink some of the water of this brook, which I did and found it remarkably cool
and refreshing, and totally unlike the river water, which is also very pure. After securing the boat, we
started off on foot, walking along the river bank for a quarter of a mile, when we came to another fish
weir and an Indian lodge. Here we struck of into a trail which led to the CAMMASS PRAIRIE, which lies
in a northerly direction through a bottom of alder, willow and vine maple. We passed several patches of
potatoes planted by the Indians, and all fenced in. After walking through a bottom for half a mile over
127

a very good but circuitous trail, we came to a creek nearly dry at this season, but evidently a large water
course during freshets. We crossed this by means of a fallen tree constructed by the Indians into a rude
bridge, and then passed up to a bench of land almost ten feet higher than the alder bottom. This I found
to be a fine level piece of land, which was covered with a heavy growth of hemlock…. After passing
through the hemlock forest, we came to the foot of a sharp hill 100 feet high. On ascending this, I found
the beautiful prairie stretched out before me, level with the top of the ascent, covered with ferns higher
than my head, and extending in a northeasterly direction five miles or more in length and from a half to
three quarters of a mile wide. Beyond this prairie is a level forest and beyond that the mountains and
hills that make the southern boundary of the Strait of Juan de Fuca…. We walked by a trail through the
ferns to the center of the prairie, where the ground rises with a gentle elevation…. I have named the
prairie Laighton’s prairie in compliment to my friend Joseph E. Laighton, Esq., late treasurer of Jefferson
County…. I only remained on the prairie long enough to get the bearings by compass of the various
mountain peaks and hills, and at 12 o’clock, noon, I started on my return to the schooner, and reached
her at half past three o’clock. I called the distance from the mouth of the river to Laighton’s prairie seven
miles. [End of Part One]
[Part Two]
On leaving the prairie, we retraced our steps over the same trail we came, and having reach the brook
where we had left our boat, we partook of a lunch of cold meat and hard bread which we washed down
with a draught of the pure cold water of the brook and then started down the river….(describes village,
climbs the fortress islet, Alekistet, and names it James’ Island).
THE NATIVES ...The Quillehuyt village is at the mouth of the river, on the little bay behind James’ Island.
Howeatl, the head chief, is a quiet and very friendly Indian, and was of great service to the whites
at the time of the wreck of the Southerner. After the passengers had left, a party sent to take charge of
the mails…..remained several weeks and were treated with the greatest kindness and hospitality. Since
that time, there have not (been) more than two or three white men passed that way. Ours was certainly
the first trading vessel ever there and the actions of the Indians showed how unaccustomed they were to
a stock of goods, but they had but little to trade with and our bargains were soon closed. They evinced
their kind feelings on our departure by all coming down to the beach and bidding us good-bye, a procedure
that I never saw Indians do before on a like occasion….
James G. Swan [1879]. Documents and notes from a meeting held August 20-1, 1879, in the village at the
mouth of the Quillayute River between Chas. Willoughby (U.S. Indian Agent), James G. Swan (interpreter
and clerk) and the chiefs and sub-chief of the Quileute.
128

This meeting, held 24 years after the Quileute speaking chiefs signed the treaty, speaks of the memories,
intentions and sentiments of the chiefs who signed the treaty. The chiefs claim that they did not understand
the provisions of the treaty and they specifically mention “the prairie land where the camas grows”
as a part of their territory which they would never give up voluntarily.
Tahahowtl, Sub Chief of the Quillehute, under the treaty then said: “I told Mr. Simmons that my land
was from the island of Upkowis (i.e. Tatoosh Is.) opposite Kwedaitsatsit (i.e. Cape Flattery, lit. “Makah
people place”) down the coast to the Hooh River. This was my land formerly, and we would not sell our
right to the river where we got our salmon (running) into the land at the mouth of the river where we
now live. We always wish to live where we are. We also claim the right to the sea coast as far as our land
extends. And we want one half of the prairie land where the camas grows. The rest we will sell to Washington.
Mr. Simmons said it was good, and he wanted to do as the Indians wished. Mr. Simmons said I
have not bought your land. All I want of you is to look out for any white man who may be wrecked on
your coast or come to you in distress. I want you to take care of them.
Mr. Simmons gave us at that time, to each man one blanket and to each woman one blanket, and three
yards of calico or white cotton cloth to each child. Mr. Simmons said, “this is a cultus potlatch (a gift) it is
not in payment for land….
Signed by Tahahoweth (his mark) Witnessed by Peter (his mark) & Jessie (his mark)
by James G. Swan, and
by Chas. Willoughby
Reagan, Albert B. [1908] The Olympic Region. Alaska-Yukon Magazine, October 1908. pp. 18-24.
Albert B. Reagan came to LaPush as school teacher in 1905 and stayed four years (he was later there
briefly as Indian Agent). He was a man of wide interests and, besides teaching and serving as local Indian
Agent, he made notations on Quileute life, community happenings, and the geography and natural
science of the surrounding Olympic area. Reagan returned briefly to work for the Indian Agency at
Hoquiam later (1928). He wrote a number of articles on various aspects of Quileute life, cultural narrative
and ethnobotany. He died in 1936 in Ouray, Utah and many of his papers were placed by his widow,
Otilla Reagan, in the Brigham Young University Archives. Reagan also did a short ethnographic manuscript
on the Quileute that is located in the BAE, Wash. D.C.
[p. 18] Railroad activity in northwestern Washington for the past two years has brought before the public
129

eye the Olympic peninsula with it giant timber and fertile valleys and prairies....Governor Stevens’ treaties
in the (18)fifties settled the Indian troubles. The scenery here is as striking as any in the state. In the
lowlands, it is true, one sees nothing but stately timber, because he is ingulfed (sic) in it, except when an
occasional prairie is encountered.
[p. 21] As far as the writer knows the soil of the prairies, treeless areas covering 4,000 acres, has never
been analyzed. It is a black loam two or more feet in thickness. It is composed of decayed fern roots that
have been collecting since the retreat of the great ice sheet. This soil is known to be as good as any in the
state. In fact, the writer has examined the soil in various parts of the United States and he has found none
better.
Curtis, Edward D. [1913] The North American Indian: Salishan Tribes of the Coast [Vol. 9, p. 141-150]
Norwood Publ. (Boston).
Curtis, the photographer and amateur ethnographer traveled and documented Quileute and their lifeways
in the early 1900s. He obtained important historical information regarding the Chimacum, the linguistic
congeners of the Quileute, who were largely extinct as a tribal group by then (having been wiped
out by Clallam and Suquamish raiding, and later intermarried with those groups). He included in his
information regarding Quileute economics and hunting, belief systems, myth and language.
Supplications were addressed to one’s own particular guardian spirits, and all persons prayed to the
sun and to Tsikati (the universe) asking for long life and for success in any contemplated undertaking.
Some would utter the prayers from a hilltop, others standing in a stream or in the sea at a secluded place
(p.148).
Thunder is believed to be the clapping of the wings of Tistilal, a huge bird and lightning is the flash of
the yellow feathers under his wings. This bird catches whales in his talons. A folktale describes how a
man once saw it alight on Beaver prairie with a whale to rest and watched it fly away without the whale.
Some people from Qiliyut found the whale and butchered it, but when the flesh was all cut up a great
hailstorm a rose. Huge hailstones killed the people, and their bodies and the whale’s were turned into
stones, which are now pointed out on the prairie as proof of the event (p.149).
Frachtenberg, Leo [1916]. Quileute Fieldnotes (notebooks recorded in LaPush, Summer of 1916) American
Philosophical Society MS, Philadelphia. 7 vols.
Leo Frachtenberg taught at Chemawa School in Oregon during WWI. Several Quileute young people
attended at that time, and Frachtenberg became acquainted with Hal George, who helped him arrange
130

a summer of interviews in LaPush during 1916 with knowledgeable elders such as Arthur Howeattle,
Talicas Eastman, Billy Hebaladup.
Frachtenberg’s notes include various historical and contemporary references to Quileute residence in and
exploitation of the prairies. The material reproduced below represents information that relates generally
to traditional Quileute use of the prairies.
[NB 2:1] Arthur Howeattle – Territory
Quiliutes lived in former times on James Island….Temporary lodges were put up on Beaver Prairie (NE
of LaPush. [2:4] At the time of the treaty (1855 and 1856), they lived in Lapush. According to this treaty
made between G. Isaac Stevens and Old Chief Howeattle (an uncle of the last chief), the Indians ceded
to the Government the northern half of Lake Ozette and eastern half of Quiliute Prairie, keeping for
Indians the other half and also forks Prairie, their camas-grounds and also fishing and hunting grounds.
[2:6] Forks Prairie was called qet’La’ayaqw “upper (i.e. upstream) prairie.” Quiliute prairie was called
sat’a’ayaqw “lower (i.e. downstream) prairie”…Every place along the river had a name and each place
was the property of a certain family. The following is a list of names and fishing grounds: …(#14)
ts’ixwo’ot’, “above the prairie” on the Calawah River 200 yards upstream from the highway bridge at the
north end of Forks, belongs to Po’oqshq’ (Dixon Payne, now to Tom Payne). This was the next (2nd) best
place because he was liwo’wa a’ach’it (‘next to the chief’). [2:9] Although the fishing grounds belonged to
particular families, hunting grounds were communal property. These grounds included the prairies and
the upper part of each river and reached clear to the Olympic Mountains.
[2:39] Arthur Howeattle and Talicus Eastman -Shelter
Permanent houses were called t’ik’al…While fishing along the river they occupied permanent homes of
the same style and material as those (in the village at the mouth of the river). During the hunting season
(i.e. while camping on the prairies) they used houses or lodges made of hemlock bark and called
Loq’wa’ati ‘bark house’. Hunting and berrying lodges were also built of underbrush and called tsasa’ati,
‘brush house’. Hunting lodges were also constructed of elk skins and called hokwodisti, ‘hide houses’.
[2:46] Loq’wa’ati ‘bark houses’ were used during summer while they were located at the prairie digging
camas and fern roots. These were built of hemlock bark. The prairies are regularly surrounded by hemlock
stands. The bark was cut this way. Circular incisions were made at the desired length of the trunk;
a similar incision was made at the bottom of the tree. Then one perpendicular incision was made from
the top to bottom and the bark was peeled off. A level spot was chosen. Then, at each end of the desired
house-site, a hemlock pole with a groove in the top was set upright. Four such corner posts were set up.
The two hind-posts were shorter, thus making the rood slanting just as in the shed-roofed traditional
Quileute permanent dwelling t’ik’al. On top of these posts horizontal poles were placed, but instead of
131

four such rafters only two were used, one on each side. The front and back of this bark-lodge had no
rafters. The rafters were tied to the posts by means of twigs. These rafters were of the same length as the
bark. Then on top of these rafters smaller poles were placed at equal distances and right angles reaching
from side to side and tied with malleable twigs or withe-ropes to the rafters. They usually used a number
of these poles, so as to prevent the weight of the bark from bending them downwards. On top of these
poles the strips of bark were laid perpendicularly which were weighed down by means of chunks of
wood or stones. The number of bark-strips necessary for the roof depended upon the size of the house.
The strips of bark on the roof were placed in the same way as the boards on the roof of permanent houses.
The walls consisted of underbrush or small hemlock limbs, which were inserted between two poles
fastened at each end with twigs. These poles (one set at the bottom and one at the top), together with
the brush were fastened to the rafter by means of limbs; and, as the front and back part had no rafters,
horizontal poles were tied at right angles to the two corner posts at a lower distance from the tops, and to
these poles the walls were tied. For an entrance, one side of the house was left entirely open, usually in
the direction away from the wind, so they often faced NE. These houses were large enough to hold one
family only.
A tsasa’ati, ‘brush house’ was used during hunting season (summer or winter) and in the prairies it could
be used both as a shelter and a blind while waiting for game. It would usually be used for a few nights
only. These houses were built of brush. A level site under a large tree was chosen. Then two posts (one at
each end) were set into the ground and across these, somewhat lower than the top, another pole was tied.
This opening served as the entrance to the lodge and also the front part of it. Against each of these two
upright poles another pole was leaned, one end resting on the ground and the thinner end tied to the upright
pole. Then across these two poles, three other poles were laid horizontally and fastened by means
of twigs. One pole at top, one in the middle and one close to the ground. At right angles with these poles
layers of hemlock limbs were placed. The front of the house was away from the tree. Two people in one
lodge.
Hokwodisti, ‘skin house’ was a hunting lodge set up by the hunters. It could be put up by hunters if they
were in heavy rain because it was more waterproof than bark or brush lodges. The skin of freshly killed
animals could be used. Mostly the skins of deer, elk or bear were used. They could either be used in
prairies or bush…. The skins were tied on top of a frame, overlapping with the hairy part on the inside.
For walls skins or old mats were used. One side was left open for an entrance. One house usually accommodated
one family. They were square; not oblong.
[2:55] Away from home, in the prairies or other camps, cooking was done in pots of various sizes and
shapes (haxixw), improvised from hemlock bark and called po’oq (square) and wi’ees (oblong shaped).
132

They occasionally cooked in baskets of spruce roots, if these were tight enough.
[3:18] Arthur Howeattle – Subsistence [Note: this section edited and expanded by Hal George during an
interview with Powell, 1978; these additions are included below).
The following roots were eaten. The preferred root-food was camas (kwala). Also, ferns, esp. bracken,
sword ferns, ladyferns, and rarely woodfern were eaten. Ferns in general were called pilapila; fernroots
in general were called t’sikwi’. Bracken were called (k’aqwa’apat) and licorice fern was called
tsaqqwa’at, a term later used fore chewing tobacco, because it was chewed. The Quiliute also dug and
ate clover roots (La’it’ay), camas (kwala), buttercup (k’ikiLiqaxpat), tiger lily (LiLipiwada’yu), silverweed
(t’Lit’Le’eshit), horsetail (t’sexaq), wild parsnip (saqwsuda’), and thistle roots (bo’olob or Liloq’wa’atapat)
and LeLxwac’so’ot, meaning unknown.
The following berries were eaten (most available in the prairies of Quileute territory): salmonberry
(cha’aLowa), red huckleberry (tiLo’ot), blue huckleberry (towadaq or yayaxad), salalberry (kwo’od),
thimbleberry (taqachiL), strawberry (t’obiya), elderberries (t’siba’), lowbush cranberry (p’ap’a’is), trailing
blackberries (bada’bixw), blackberries (introduced species, evergreen and himalaya, all called
shishipq’it’sa), gooseberry (t’ik’wapat), crabapples (soyoyoswa’), stink currants (t’Liloc’hiyiL), rose hips
(t’Lik’way) ), Oregon grape, and serviceberry (questionable use, no Quiliute name recalled).
[3:19] Roots were dug by means of a digger (t’iyoq’wot’soqwoL meaning “used for digging the ground”).
Made of spruce, yew, and vine maple limbs, crooked and pointed at the end. The point was barbed.
These had handles occasionally. They were from 4-5 feet long and about a 2-3 inches thick. Elk and deer
horn hand-diggers were also used.
Preservation of food. Elk and deer meat was dried. The fat was first cut away and left to dry separately.
Occasionally the fat was first partly smoked and dried…Smoke-drying meat was done only during the
cloudy months. The upriver prairies were much sunnier than downstream areas and the river mouth,
and meat was wind dried up there. In the summer when the sun was bright, the slices were smoked for a
short time only to keep the flies away and then they were placed outside on a platform above the ground,
whose poles were about 6 inches apart and left to dry in the sun. At night the meat was taken off and put
on again in the morning. Meat dried this way could keep about a year. Bear, cougar, and wildcat meat
was cut in long, one-inch thick strips and dried or smoked by being flapped over horizontal poles above
the ground. Of course, these meats were also eaten fresh, as was the meat of smaller animals and birds,
which were usually not preserved by drying.
[3:25] Fern roots were (taken home, then) rolled up and dried in the house by placing them across two or
133

more poles. Roots dried in this way kept a whole year. Camas was preserved by simply being kept in a
dry place. The other roots were dried by laying them on a mat or the ground and exposing to the rays of
sun. Gooseberries, salmon and huckleberries, thimble and strawberries and crabapples were eaten fresh.
Huckleberries and all other berries were preserved by either drying or steaming. Crabapples were also
crushed and mixed with grease (as were all berries) for a sweet treat. Elderberries were steamed (just like
camas) in this way: a circular hole was dug in ground or sand about one-foot deep. This hole was lined
on the bottom and sides with rocks. On top of these, a fire was built and into it more rocks were put.
When stones were red-hot, the wood was taken away and fire permitted to die out. On top of the ashes
were wide straps of alder bark spread on, which the berries were spread out, this protected them from
touching the dirt of the edges by means of skunk cabbage leaves. The berries were then covered with layers
of skunk cabbage leaves which were sprinkled with water to produce steam, and on top of these dirt
or sand was piled about 6 inches thick. On top a big fire was made and enough wood piled to make the
fire last a whole night. Next morning the berries were uncovered and smashed finely by pounding them
with the bottoms of wooden spoons. Then they were put into pikwo’ (special elderberry storage baskets).
The berries were cooled off and transferred into those baskets made of hemlock bark covered up with
leaves of soft vine maple and stored away in the mud of shallow creeks.
Salal and huckleberries were dried either by the fire or in the sun. They were spread on mats (outside,
if it was sunny) and left to dry. After being dry, the berries were placed in bags made of cedarbark and
stored away. Fresh salalberries were mashed in carved wooden bowls if available or bark containers in
the prairies, and made into oblong cakes with rounded corners, some three-inches thick and dried slowly
in the house, away from the fire. When dry they were stored away. One such cake was worth a blanket.
Fresh salalberries were also mashed in wooden pots made into long thin cakes and placed high upon
skunk cabbage leaves to dry slowly. Huckleberries were only dried on mats.
Roots and berries were dug and gathered by men and women. When the whole family went out, the men
usually dug the roots while the women picked the berries. Fernroots were dug in winter from November
until April. Camas and wild parsnip was dug during spring from April to June. Wild clover roots were
dug in June and July. LeLxwat’so’ot (meaning not known) were dug in March and horsetail roots all year
round. When camas time came, they left their permanent homes in March going up to Forks, Little or
Quiliute Prairie, staying until a sufficient quantity was obtained. None of the roots were dried at their
temporary lodges in the prairies. The berries were picked in their seasons and the women were never
absent alone from their homes for more than 2 or 3 days at a time. Gooseberries and salmonberries ripen
in the later part of June: blue and red huckleberries in July, likewise elderberries, salal and blackberries in
August; thimbleberries in July; strawberries during June & July, and crabapples in September.
134

[3:37] Billy Hebaladup and Arthur Howeattle, Hunting.
The Quiliutes used to hunt along the banks of the rivers….The prairies too were full of game and they
hunted especially on Quiliute Prairie (c’hikwyaqw or sat’ayaqw), Forks Prairie (qet’Layaqw), Little
Prairie (q’wadiyaqw), Beaver and Tyee Prairies (t’axetal yaqw ), and Lower Bear Creek prairie area
(t’sixwokwotsoqw yaqw). The hunting areas belong to the whole tribe and are available to anyone.
Hunting was done with bows and arrows (taxwLo’ hixat ha’itat). They also snared and trapped animals.
During hunting, dogs were always used (except when hunting from canoes or waiting at blinds
in the prairies). These were the wolf dogs and were highly prized. Tradition has it that they were purchased
by trade from the Neah Bays. Usually a bitch was bought and bred by the Quiliute. Dog collars
(Lichq’adasqwoL) were used only while in camp. These were made of leather and had a long bark line
fastened to it. When ready to start hunting, they painted the dog’s head with red ochre. This was to protect
them from wolves for wolves would not touch dogs whose heads were painted. Dogs were turned
lose when close to game and called in by whistling.
[3:47] The regular and most important hunting season was during the month of June (t’Laxaliqtiya’at).
[ed. - Hal George said, “Too early! They’d go get their elk in late July or early August! That’s when it was
fat.”] In that month the bull elks were really fat. After the rutting season, the bulls become lean and the
hunters went home. Of course, they hunted at other times and when game presented itself, but were not
as successful as in June. When hunting for bull elks in June, a whole party participated consisting of several
families. In the other hunts usually one or at the most two families took part. [Elk hunting, butchering,
distribution among members of the hunt described.]
Deer were usually hunted on prairies during morning and late evenings. These were not hunted with
dogs, but were shot from a convenient hiding place. During mating season elk were hunted with dogs
(in the prairies and lower areas) who cornered the animals until the hunters arrived. In these hunts, the
hunter’s very often caught the bull and cow at the same time, since the bulls did not leave their mates
easily. [description of snares, springpole snares, deadfalls and pitfalls, none of which were commonly
used in the prairies.] A good hunter could shoot (with a bow and arrow) at a target 200 yards (away) and
hit the mark.
[3:127] Arthur Howeattle - Transportation
All travel was done in canoes or on foot…. River canoes are propelled by means of paddles and long
poles, especially on shallow water. These poles were made of hemlock and called t’LixiL. Travel on river
was rather extensive, since the rivers were navigable to the small canoes almost clear up to the Olympic
range… All overland travel eastwards was done during their journeys to the hunting and berrying or fern
grounds. The Quiliute men and women are good walkers. Even today [1916] many women go for camas
as far as Forks (14 miles). Today teams and horses are used occasionally, but owing to lack of pasture
135

lands and to lack of a road from LaPush to Mora, few horses and only two teams are owned in the whole
village. Their best salalberry and crabapple grounds were situated about 6 miles east of LaPush… All
burdens were carried in canoes or in baskets by means of tumplines (haq’waqstiL) of cedar or, now, rags,
worn by the women on their foreheads. Young babies were carried by women in the folds of their blankets
in front of them (Likwtipilil). These blankets were tied around the waist of the woman by means of
a packstrap, and the two ends of the blanket were fastened together on the right shoulder by means of a
pin made of bone. Older children were placed on the top of the baskets (t’axaq’wadasLil), carried by the
women with tumplines. In case there were two children, the man usually carried the larger in the same
way.
[4:39] Arthur Howeattle and Tommy Payne – Social Organization
The village community (wic’hiyolit) was divided into greater families (ho’oLwat), house groups
(wiLqpat) and nuclear families (wiLwat). There was no clan system. The whole tribe owned the tribal
territory in common due to mythic common origin. Greater families and house groups had rights (usually
accorded to the status person in the family or group) to economic resources, names, dances and songs.
Individuals had guardian spirits (t’axilit) that were acquired originally by individuals and thereafter
heritable to descendants. These crests had nothing to do with the common origin of the family from one
ancestor… Thus, Arthur’s great grandfather was a great t’axilit-man. His crest was the Thunderbird and
Whale (a crest associated with the mythic history of the origin of the prairies). The Howeattle family
obtained it from him.
[4:57] Land was neither individual nor family property. It belonged to the whole tribe. A man or family,
however, was looked upon as the proprietor of the place on which he built his permanent fishing, digging
or hunting houses. These houses could be inherited. A man wishing to settle on a place asked nobody’s
permission provided it was not occupied by anybody else….Berrying and root digging grounds were also
common property. These common grounds were only accessible to the members of the tribe. Outsiders
[non-Quiliutes] were excluded from them.
[4:61] Festivals.
In former years, up to about 70 years ago, the only presents given during a potlatch consisted of food
such as dried salmon, camas, etc. [baskets of camas are always mentioned as preferred gifts at potlatches,
e.g. 4:67; and were valued trade items, i.e. 3:142]
[4:81] Arthur Howeattle - Birth, Childhood, etc. (incl. Taboos)
A woman with child for the first time and any pregnant woman had a good many taboos (apolaks, “it
is taboo for her to …”) imposed upon her. [These affected a pregnant woman or new mother visiting or
136

working in the prairies].
…She could not eat or touch fern roots (t’sikwi’), because she would have pains as if stung by needles,
just like the plant has them. She could not eat or touch a certain species [?] of camas, otherwise she would
have lumps in her belly. She could not eat or touch horsetail roots (tsexaq) for the same reason. She
could not eat or touch fern roots because these travel like a snake inside her body. [Taboo against various
types of berries picked on prairies and elsewhere.] She could not eat or touch wild parsnip (saqwsuda’)
as these would cause in her womb lumps shaped just like carrots. Nor could she touch xa’at’ada (a plant
like camas but smaller and very hard [?]). Nor q’a’abat’s (a long plant 4 inches wide and one-half inch
through [?]), as it will cause lumps in her belly. She could not touch any bird, as otherwise the child
would act just like the eaten or touched bird. She could not eat nor touch any kind of game (deer, elk,
etc.) because the child will act just like the eaten animal. A pregnant woman could not look upon a dying
or dead animal or person, because the child will be dead also. The husband of a pregnant woman is
forbidden to see, touch or eat any of the things forbidden to his wife.
[4:107] Twins. The parents of twins and young twin children had especially stringent taboos, including
camas. The parents of twins could not look at the river or streams or at the ocean. As soon as twins were
born the parents and the children moved away into the woods or prairie to avoid the sight of the ocean
and river, otherwise there wouldn’t be any fish or whales in the water. After eight months all taboos are
expired.
[5:13-15] Orphans and widows. Orphans were allowed to eat anything after the death of their parent,
but the widow or widower could not eat any berries, camas. A woman or man eating berries or camas
then would become dried out and skinny like the dried berries or camas.
[5:22] Webb Jones and Dixon Payne - Religion, worldview, origins.
Thunder and lightning are caused by Thunderbird….Originally he is a man….He has a house in the snow
peaks of the Olympics. Everytime he goes to the sea he puts on his blankets which make him look like
a bird. Upon returning he takes off his clothes and becomes a man again. He looks like an eagle, but is
much larger. His wings are so large that they extend from the top of a tree to the ground and the feathers
are 12 feet long. He causes the thunder by flapping his wings and the lightning by spreading them out.
He can still be seen [and heard] today. One day a woman saw him at Forks Prairie (qet’Layayqwoqw).
Her husband came to see it and got a feather from the tail. This made him a great elk hunter.
[5:23] The fire and how to start one was shown to the people by Q’wati. [This happened in Forks Prairie
area and was the beginning of keeping the prairies open by burning them.]
137

[5:33] [There are prairies in the land of the dead. In the very heart of the underworld…] Beyond this is a
prairie full of strawberries, where they could pick and eat berries. [There are other places in the underworld
and the road that leads to it which sound like prairies, as well.]
[7:8] Arthur Howeattle, Webb Jones and Dixon Payne – Guardian Spirits.
Men and women had guardian spirits, called taxilit, which were acquired some time during their
lives, usually between the ages of 18 and 35. The guardian spirits were divided into two classes.
Those “for to sing with” (taxilit), and those to cure with (possessed by medicine men only and called
ixwaLola’aqoLowa taxilit)…. The qit’La’kwaLi taxilit live upstream on the Forks Prairie, east of Lapush,
and they too begin their travels Westward in the winter. The tLokwali guardians live north and begin
to travel southward in November. These guardians always travel in air-canoes and can be seen only by
those who obtain those spirits. Those who have Tlokwali spirits often camp in the prairie alone during
clear nights in November, dancing the tLokwali with a small fire, pausing regularly to check the sky for
the air canoe of the tLokwali spirit.
[7:9] A person desiring a certain taxilit has to pray for it every morning and night while bathing from new
moon until full moon. In former years those who wanted a medicine or hunting taxilit used to go up into
the mountains or along the edge of prairies, staying there about a month and even longer. While there
they build a platform about 4 ft. high, kindle a fire on both sides of it and lay on the platform waiting for
the taxilit. Whale fat and elk tallow are placed on the fire to attract the guardian spirits. As soon as the
taxilit comes, the man jumps down and grabs him and hugs him to his breast. Thereupon he faints several
times, regains his consciousness and goes home – in possession of the taxilit.
Reagan, Albert B. [1917] Archaeological Notes on Western Washington and Adjacent British Columbia.
(Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences) Fourth Series, Vol. VII, pp. 2-31.
[p. 3] ....the Olympic Peninsula is a very difficult country in which to do research work. There are but
three wagon roads in the entire area west of the Olympics. One of these roads, aggregating some 50 miles
in total length, connects Port Angeles with Lake Crescent and Port Crescent and the latter again with
Lake Crescent. The second road extends from East Clallam, on the Strait of Juan de Fuca, west to LaPush,
on the Pacific front, a distance of about 50 miles. The third road connects the above roads along the line
of the Soleduck River. Trails also extend from West Clallam to Ozette Lake and the Dickey Lake country,
and from the latter to Quillayute prairie. Another trail connects Forks with the Hoh country. A few short
trails also branch off of the main trails here and there. These afford all the means of gaining access to the
interior, except by canoe on the various streams.
138

[p. 8] Middens. The middens (of Quillaute country) are of three classes, based upon age: ancient, old and
recent. The recent middens were made since the Astoria-Hudson Bay fur trading began, as is attested by
the Hudson Bay Company’s beads intermingled with the middens....The middens here designated “old,”
underlie the recent occupation at LaPush and on James Island, scattered patches also occur at several
other places...The ancient middens underlie and are found to be intermixed with the more recent middens
on James Island (due to the use of these heights as a garden for many years). They are also found
on the Pacific water-front, also flanking and capping Pacific Street ridge at LaPush. Middens of this age
are also found far inland, at Beaver Prairie, Forks Prairie, Quillayute Prairie, and at various camping
places along the Quillayute River and its tributaries; more recent middens are also found at each of these
places. These ancient middens, as of the other classes previously mentioned are composed of decaying
remains of marine shells, intermingled with enormous quantities of ashes, calcined and fractured rocks
and other refuse material, all showing evidence of extreme age. Their age is further attested by the fact
that huge trees, hundreds of years old, are growing on them. (Especially in the prairies, parts of which
are undisturbed)....many “oven mounds” are found. In outward appearance they resemble the burial
mounds above described. Within, however, are the charred remains of fruits or sea species that have been
oven-baked. That these are oven mounds, there is no doubt. As the Quillayute bake clams, wild fruits,
and “lacamas” in the same sort of oven to this day. A pit is dug...(description of cooking process)...The
earth-mound is left and the shifting sand fills up the hole from which the baked articles have been taken.
The mound is then complete.
[p. 20] This regarding the Waatch Prairie, once part of Quileute territory, but was Makah-speaking ter-
ritory at the time of European contact. Concerning the Flood myth the Makahs say: A long time ago the
water of the Pacific flowed through what is now the swamp and prairie between Waatch village and Neah
Bay, making an island of Cape Flattery. The water suddenly receded, leaving Neah Bay perfectly dry. For
four days the water ebbed out. Then, without any waves or breakers, it rose till it had submerged the
whole country, excepting the tops of the mountains at Cloquet [Clayoquat]. The water was warm as it
came up to the houses. As it rose the Indians took to their canoes and floated off with the current, which
set very strongly to the north, but as there were no landmarks and as the sky was continually clouded,
some drifted one way and some another. When the waters subsided to their accustomed level, some of
the Makahs found themselves at Nootka, where their descendants now reside. Some found homes at
other places to the north. Many canoes came down in trees and were destroyed and numerous lives were
lost. The waters were four days regaining their accustomed level.
The Waatch prairie shows conclusively that the water of the Pacific once flowed through it; and on
cutting through the turf at any place between Neah bay and Waatch the whole stratum is found to be
fine beach sand, intermingled with ocean shells, sometimes collected in piles and ridges as if they had
139

een ancient midden heaps. In some places the turf is not more than a foot thick; at others, the alluvial
deposit is two or three feet. As this portion of the country shows conclusive evidence of volcanic action
and earthquake disturbances on a gigantic scale, there is every reason to believe that there was a gradual
depression and subsequent upheaval of the earth’s crust, which made the waters rise and recede, as the
Indians allege.
Reagan, Albert B. [1929] Whaling of the Olympic Peninsula Indians of Washington, Natural History,
Vol. 25, pp. 25-32.
[p.25-6] The origin of the stones in Beaver Prairie. The Thunder Bird is represented as engaged in dreadful
battles with whales. Once this bird, after killing the powerful ocean monster, was nearly robbed of
its prey by a group of people who came to the scene and cut up the whale. But scarcely had they done
so when it began to rain, snow and hail. The ThunderBird, the flash of whose eyes are the lightning and
the flapping of whose wings produces the mighty winds, came flying up in anger. Soon he caused great
chunks of ice to fall. The people were scared. Some tried to flee, others concealed themselves under logs
and rocks to escape the wrath of this god of the air. But all were stricken and turned to stone as was also
the meat of the whale. Whoever visits the scene of their fatal gathering may view their remains, represented
by great blocks that form a ridge from one end of Beaver Prairie to the other. One may even see
the ribs of the whale’s carcass and its massive head.
[p. 32] Whale oil is used (as a condiment) in eating potatoes, camas, roots, dried clams, and boiled or
dried fish, which are dipped into it.
Reagan, Albert B. [1923] Flora of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. (Transactions of the Iowa Academy
of Science) Vol. 30, pp. 201-243. [N.B. The entries in this article duplicate, generally verbatim, the
entries in Reagan, 1934, q.v.]
[p. 201-2] The peninsula is in northwest Washington....The area of the peninsula is about 8,000 square
miles. [geology, climate, rainfall]....Growing under this equable climate with such an abundance of rainfall
(enough in amount to preserve the forest and shrubbery from general destruction by fire), the peninsula,
with few exceptions, is the most densely forested region in North American, and smaller plants do
equally well.
[p. 203] Bracken fern. Grows on the “prairies” and burned over places, especially in the middle upland
area. It is the fern of Forks Prairie. It has also been carried to the beach with feed and appears in the
140

old graveyard near where the old (Mr. Wesley Smith) school house used to be at LaPush. The writer has
seen it in the upland regions. At Forks Prairie it grows as high as a horse. The burning of this fern year
by year was what kept up these prairies and extended their area. The Indians burned the prairies over
for the purpose of clearing out the area so they could shoot deer and elk when they came to feed on the
young sprouts. The prairies, about ten in number, probably were started as camping sites, which were
gradually extended by the annual burnings. They also dug the roots of these ferns and pounded them
into a pulp, which they dried. This they made into a sort of dough when it was needed and baked it into
a blackish bread, which they claim was good eating. Unluckily, the writer appeared too late on the scene
to see any of this fern paste bread.
[p. 204] Scouring rush. The Indians of the coast dig the rootstocks of this rush and eat them. They have
a sweetish, not bad taste and are considered a great delicacy by them. They also dry them for future
use. They also gather them to be eaten during several of their medicine ceremonies as they are said to be
“good medicine.”
Selaginella oregano. It might also not be out of place to mention that the fern is the weed of the region
and in the prairie sections is one of the hardest weed pests to get rid of. It is about an equal of the Canadian
and Russian thistles. The bracken fern is the harder fern to eradicate. At Quillayute Prairie ferns
have taken whole farms.
[p. 211] Skunk cabbage. A plant resembling a cabbage somewhat; but with larger leaves and no “head.”...
In the spring the bear feeds on this plant. The Indians also use its leaves. When roasting the cammas
(La cammas, as the Indians call it), they cover the cammas heap, which they have collected with layers
of leaves of this plant. This they cover with a light layer of dirt and then over all they pile considerable
wood. This they ignite and keep burning till the cammas is cooked beneath it. Sometimes a pit is used
for this baking process. The natives say that the cabbage leaves give a good flavor to the cammas fruit;
but a white man would hardly think so. The natives also wrap red elderberies in leaves of this cabbage
when preparing them by the native baking process. They also wrap fruits, usually cooked fruits, in the
leaves of this plant and then bury the whole in the muck of some swampy region. This was their way of
“canning” fruit. The old people told the writer that it would “keep.”
[p. 212] Camas. Called by the Indians la camas, pronounced as one word with the accent on the first
syllable. Common wherever there is an open area, most abundant in the “prairies,” especially Quillayute
Prairie. Scilla fraseri is also another plant from which the Indians use the bulb roots and call “Lacamas,”
as has been previously mentioned. The bulbs are very similar to those of the Quamasia and are prepared
in the same way. The Indians have many myths about this plant.
141

[p. 215] Nettle. Common everywhere in clearings, prairies and along the seacoast region. Where it
grows the thickest, the squaws pull up the roots by hand and there make their best gardens. The roots
are twisted into ropes by the natives and in the old time were woven into cloth and mats and made into
baskets. Both the whites and Indians of the region use the tops for greens.
Reagan, Albert B. [1934] Plants Used by the Hoh and Quileute Indians. (Transactions of the Kansas
Academy of Science) Vol. 37, pp. 55-70.
[p. 55] While in charge of different tribes of West Coast Indians from 1905 to 1909 and in 1928 the writer
made a study of the plants used by them. This included a study of the plants they used for food and
medicine and those used in making baskets, mats, in house building, etc. The use of more than eighty
plants are given, their descriptions, and uses to which the Indian put them....These Indians were great users
of the plants of the region in the old days, and still do use some of them.
[p. 56] Fern Family. Bracken Fern. Indian name: kakwaput, kah-a-kwa, wot-tsa-a-balk. This fern grows
in the “prairies” of the region and burned-over places, especially in the middle upland regions. It is the
fern of Forks and Quillayute prairies. It has been carried to the beach with feed and appears in the old
graveyard near where the old (Mr. Wesley Smith) schoolhouse used to be at LaPush-Quillayute Indian
village. At Forks prairie it grows as high as a horse. The burning of this fern year by year was what kept
up the “prairies” of the peninsula and extended their area. The Indians burned the ferns for the purpose
of clearing out the prairies so they could shoot the deer and elk when the come to feed on the young fern
sprouts. They also dug the roots of these ferns, pounded them to a pulp, dried the pulp, mixed it into a
sort of dough and baked bread from it, which then claim was pretty good bread. Unluckily, the writer appeared
on the scene too late to see any of this fern-paste bread. The Indians have many myths about the
ferns, but space will not permit relating them here.
[p. 57] Scouring Rush. The Indians of the coast dig the rootstocks of these two scouring rushes and eat
them. They consider them a great delicacy. They also gather them to be eaten during several of their
medicine ceremonies. They are said to be “good medicine. They are also eaten during the puberty ceremonies.
They have a sweetish taste, not a bad taste. The writer has seen them dried in food preparation.
[p. 59] Camas (Quamasia, Quamash). Most abundant wherever there is an open area, though most abundant
in the “prairies,” especially at Quillayte and Forks prairies. The bulb of this plant is used as food
by the Indians of the whole coast. In preparing this food, a pit is dug in which a fire is built. On the fuel
cobbles are piled, which, when heated to red heat, are covered over with wet leaves, brush or grass. On
142

this the bulbs are piled and over all wet leaves are spread to the thickness of, say, seven inches. Then over
all, clay, earth or sand is heaped. Just before completing the covering over with earth, a quantity of water
is poured on the cooking product and then when the covering is completed a small hole is left through
the dirt-layer for the escape of steam. The cooking is then permitted to continue for about twenty-four
hours. The product is removed through a hole dug through the top of the pit. The earth mound is left and
the shifting sand fills up the hole from which the baked articles have been taken. The mound is then complete,
a puzzle for future archaeologists (clams and fruits were also prepared by the oven process). Oven
mounds are scattered throughout the region and northward to the Fraser River country. The Indians have
many myths about the camas plant, but space will not permit relating them here.
[p. 61] Red Alder. In the old times the Indians placed the canoes of the dead, canoes containing corpses,
up in alder trees among the leafy branches, where they tied them securely with spruce-root ropes. The
writer saw several such “burials.” The Indians seemed to prefer the alder to other trees for such interment.
[p. 64] Crabapple (and various prairie berries). Indian name for crabapple: tse-yo-yo’k-ke-day-put
(“put” equals shrub [actually ‘plant’]). Common from the head of the Hoh River, especially along it western
branch, to the coast. At LaPush it grows in a semiswampy region to the east of the old Wesley Smith
schoolhouse site. There are also several patches of the species growing at Quillayute prairie, the largest
covering about two acres, two miles east of the Quillayute post office. The Indians eat the fruit of this
plant, except currants and gooseberries it is almost the only sour thing which the writer knows they eat.
They also use the bark of its roots as medicine, the bark of its limbs and trunk also sometimes being used.
Crabapple tea is also given as a remedy for gonorrhea.
[p. 69] (Elderberry use and preservation techniques)
Reagan, Albert B. [1934b] Some Notes on the Hypnotic Ceremonies of Indians. Utah Academy of Arts,
Sciences and Letters. Vol. XI, pp. 65-71.
[p. 66-7] Prairies in the Quileute underworld. The West Coast Indians have three kinds of doctors, prin-
cipal among whom is the witch-hypnotic type, commonly known as tomanawis doctor....At one of the
medicine ceremonies which the writer attended, the old medicine man, on coming out of the trance, gave
an account of his journey after the fleeing soul to his credulous listeners, as follows: “I followed the soul
on its journey to the land of after-breath-has-left-the-body; the spirit of a person looks just like a person,
only very small. The road we were on was crooked and stony. The raspberry bushes were only about six
143

inches high and the berries and crowberries were also very small, as were the strawberries along the way;
and the ferns of the prairie were only two fingers high. I saw many people gathering berries and fern
roots, the latter to be made into bread. These people were not a finger-length high.”
At another time another medicine man, who was doctoring a patient that recovered, gave an account of
his journey to those present, on coming out of the trance, as follows: “I passed over the river of the dead
to its other side. The people I saw there were large, strong and happy, and the trees were all large. The
berries were larger than I ever saw here, and all the bushes were heavily loaded with fruit. There were
also plenty of game in the prairies and fern roots for bread; and there were feasts and dances every day in
that happy land.”
Pettitt, George A. [1950] The Quileute of La Push, 1775-1945. Anthropological Records, Vol. 14:1,
George Pettitt spent World War II in LaPush in the Coast Guard. After the war, he attended the
University of California at Los Angeles and went back to the Quileute to gather information for this community
history. As far as the Quileute recall, he never returned to LaPush after finishing his fieldwork
among them. His dissertation was, essentially, a community history and sociological study of Quileute
acculturation. Unexplainably, he neither mentions the importance of prairie resources in tribal pre-contact
economics, nor does he mention the reasons for their decline in maintenance and usage.
[p. 1] Quileute Territory Their territory, starting some thirty miles south of cape Flattery, extends approximately
thirty miles south along the Pacific coast and thirty miles inland. Except for a few meadows
and prairies of limited size along the rivers, the country is rough and mountainous and covered by a
dense tangle of trees and brush… The brush, particularly along the edges of prairies, stream, and roads,
contains a high percentage of wild berries, black, elder, salal, salmon, thimble, etc.
[p. 28] Conflicts with Whites. There was some friction as land was homesteaded and the Indians found
it expedient to move out of the back country and congregate at the mouths of the rivers, but it never came
to a dangerous break because very little of the homesteaded land could be cleared and cultivated—it
was held for the timber on it and could still be used for hunting, and hunting land animals was a minor
part of Quileute food economy in any case. [earlier] Morton Penn recalls that when his family moved
from its upper river home to LaPush, the farmer on whose land they found themselves was loath to have
them move and several times invited them to move back. Because the prairie areas were not completely
settled, there were still areas available for foraging, and quickly the Quileute appetite for traditional roots
was replaced with potatoes and other root vegetables traded or received in payment for work on farms,
or increasingly grown in the Quileutes’ own garden plots.
144

[p. 29] Land ownership. In 1915 the Quileute absorbed more knowledge concerning the difference between
white ownership of property and the traditional Indian concept that ownership continued only as
long as the property was used. For several years a number of the Quileute had been planting vegetables
on a piece of riverbottom land within the area belonging to Mr. Harvey Smith. When Mr. Smith fenced
his land and evicted the Indians for this gardening area, the Indians felt that they were wronged because
the land was not in use when they took it over. The matter was explained, but not their satisfaction. [p.
42] Under the old Indian system of land ownership no one questioned ownership so long as the land was
in use, and there has never been a shortage of building sites. Ownership of houses has been of more concern
than ownership of the land on which they were built...one gathers that the Indians see no particular
reason for a piece of paper to prove land ownership. Everybody knows who owns what anyway.
[p. 50] Agriculture and stock raising. As early as 1862, the Superintendent for Wash. Terr. expressed the
opinion that attempts to introduce agriculture on coastal reservation would not succeed because of the
great labor required to clear land and pull stumps. He estimated that it cost $150 an acre to prepare land
for planting. The country was not very suitable for grazing either, except the prairies, which were not
part of the reserves and had been first choice lands for homesteaders.....It was probable that there was
no interest in agricultural pursuits among the Quileute until after 1890, aside from gardening instruction
given to the young people at the school starting in 1881. [p. 51] For nutritional and economic reasons, the
government has made a number of attempts to introduce the raising of truck crops. A few years ago [i.e.
early ‘30s] the Indian Agent organized a community garden lot. The govt. paid the Indians to clear other
ground for it, and provided the seed. A group of five Indians agreed to operate it. For a season or two
the program was reasonably successful, but then interest began to wane. Crops did not grow as well as
they had the first year under got. Supervision and cattle or horses or deer managed to get in one way or
another. Mark Williams has continued to raise a little corn and a few potatoes because he is an old man
and, as others explain it, he has nothing to do but watch them grow. Tyler Hobucket also cultivated a
garden for a number of years, but now doesn’t attempt much because he is still sick at heart over what
happened in 1937 [a horse ate his garden in a night and precipitated a continuing community disagreement]....
Back of the Quileutes’ lack of sustained interest in agriculture, of course, lies a long history of dependence
on what nature provided in the way of plant and animal food by her own unaided efforts. The
Quileute were never expected to feed elk or deer, or cultivate the wild berries or plow the prairies, which
produced and still produce heavy crops of fern roots or camas. What advantage is there in substituting
plants and animals, which require so much labor to keep alive.
Howeattle, Mattie [1961], as quoted in the Seattle Times, Apr. 18, 1961, “Schools Needed Says Oldest
Quinault.” Mattie Howeattle was born on the Hoh River of a Hoh mother and Quileute father. She lived
in later years in Taholah, but held a potlatch in LaPush during the 1940s.
145

The Indians knew how to kill an elk, light the fires and go home while the meat cooked. The Indians
knew how to handle fire and it never got away.
Singh, Ram Raj Prasad [1966]. Aboriginal Economic System of the Olympic Peninsula Indians – Western
Washington. The Sacramento Anthropological Society (Sacramento State College, Calif.).
Ram Singh was a student at the University of Washington and undertook fieldwork on the traditional
economic patterns of the Olympic tribal groups (Quileute, Quinault and Makah-speaking groups). At
the suggestion of Erna Gunther, with some supervision by Verne Ray, Mel Jacobs and Bill Elmendorf,
he conducted fieldwork during 1954-5. His Quileute informants were Mary Ward, Anna Williams, Esau
Penn, Mark Williams, Jack Ward, Billy Hudson and Big and Little Bill Penn (p. 8). Although Singh makes
numerous mentions of prairies and prairie resources, in his summary initial description of the peninsula
he makes no mention at all of this important aspect of the landscape.
[p. 24] Land Resources. Some elk come to the large prairies to feed, and a few herds live in the valleys,
the quality of the latter being regarded as inferior…were economically important for the Quinault and
Quileute, Every part was used—the meat, fat, hide, antlers, and bone. Chisels and other tools were made
out of the horn. Arrowheads were made from bone. Women used bone marrow as cosmetic.
[p. 25] Vegetable Foods. In prairies there are camas and ferns with edible roots. There are a few prairies
in Quileute and Quinault country; the Makah had none. The Ozette used one prairie but it was only
slightly productive. Camas and ferns grew profusely in these prairies; the former were economically
important and the amount produced did not meet the demand. It was so highly valued that it was one of
the few items purchased by the Makah and Ozette from the Quileute and Quinault. Camas had a special
place at feasts and potlatches.
Prairies played an important role in the life of the Indians. Entire families went to the prairies nearest the
villages, usually with other families of the tribe. Each family had an “occupancy right” in a great prairie
such as O’took Prairie or Quileute Prairie. The family burned over its part of the prairie in the spring so
that dead ferns would be destroyed, giving way to camas. Generally no outsider would trespass unless
he received permission from the family which ”owned” the site. Such a request however was always
granted. The trail to a prairie was kept up by the people who used it. In the prairie dwelling families did
some hunting and also collected cedar bark to make garments, rope and baskets [along the edges]. Men
hunted elk, deer, and smaller animals. Women dug roots and collected grass and cedar bark. Berries
grow in abundance in various areas, but particularly in prairies, open spaces and river bottoms. If a forest
fire or high wind clears a site, berries and vegetables grow profusely. Each patch of important berries
146

such as salmon-berries and blackberries was utilized by a single family. A family might remain near such
a patch for several days. Mountain blueberries, preferred by Indians because they were sweeter than valley
berries, were picked during elk hunting expeditions. Men hunted while women picked berries.
[p. 27] Nettles, whose fiber was used for nets, grow in abundance in open spaces. The Indians dried the
nettles in the sun or, when there was no sun, put them under a mat to dry by the heat of the house. When
they were half dry the Indians struck them against the wall or logs to separate fibers.
[p. 29] Rational Actions. The danger of excessive exploitation of food resources seems to have been recognized
for only a few species. The restriction of hunting or gathering food in a particular territory to the
members of one’s own group or family was at least partly motivated by the realization that production by
outsiders would diminish the available supply. The Indians who dug roots in prairies burned over such
sites in order to give useful roots a chance to grow instead of weeds and ferns. They took precautions
not to burn the surrounding trees and bushes, and burned the prairies section by section. Their methods
of fire control were so effective that in the Olympic Peninsula, except for a small area of forest near Little
Prairie, none of the forest surrounding a prairie shows any sign of fire.
[p. 42] Land mammal hunting. Elk, principally mountain elk, were hunted with bow and arrow. Cow
elk were usually hunted in prairies and valleys with the help of dogs to chase them. Deer were also
hunted in that manner. But they and bears were also caught in traps. [p. 43] Super-natural means of
production….Elk hunters among the Quileute and Quinault were believed to require the help of particularly
strong spirits. In order to obtain a spirit power the young prospective elk hunter prayed, bathed in
a prescribed manner, and subjected himself to severe discipline and hardship….When he got the power,
he was able to lead a party to hunt elk. Indians often hunted elk in the lower valleys and prairies, often
without having elk power.
[p. 49] Food Preservation. Camas, fernroots were put in baskets and washed in running water. They
were preserved without other processing. Camas were treated immediately after digging. The Indians
baked camas and roots if they wanted to keep them for their own use. They did not process roots, which
they wanted to use for trade or exchange…When hunters killed many elk far from their temporary
camps, they smoked the meat on the spot. Smoked meat was easy to carry, and there was less of it. But
it took almost two days and two nights to smoke elk properly…. Preservation of elderberries required a
good deal of labor. When the Indians had collected a few baskets of elderberries, a circular hole was dug
in the ground or sand about one foot deep, and lined on the bottom and sides with rocks. On these rocks
a fire was built and into it more rocks were put. When the stones were hot, the wood was taken away and
the fire was permitted to die out. On top of the ash, wide strips of alder bark were laid and kept dirt-free
147

with skink cabbage leaves. The Indians laid berries on these leaves and covered them with additional
layers of skunk cabbage leaves sprinkled with water to produce steam. Next morning the berries were
uncovered and pounded with the bottoms of wooden spoons. Then they were put into baskets, generally
of hemlock bark. The Quileute called such baskets po’oq. They covered the berries with leaves of soft
vine maple and stored the baskets in the mud of a shallow creek, which had very cold water. Huckleberries
and blackberries were not cooked like elderberries but were mashed in a basket and made into oblong
cakes about three inches thick. These cakes dried slowly inside the house near the fire. When dried,
they were stored. They lasted indefinitely. Such cakes were precious. Salalberries were mashed fresh
and them put into a watertight basket, which was set in a ditch, which was maintained by a cold spring.
[p. 53] Camas and Roots Preservation. Camas bulbs could be preserved without processing but they had
to be prepared and cooked before eating. The Indians prepared them so as to avoid labor at mealtime.
They were aware that processed camas lasted a long time. They prepared camas for preservation using
the technique employed for elderberries; however, they used leaves of salalberries rather than skunk cabbage.
Camas roots then taste like baked sweet potato. They were preserved by being pressed into loaves
which, when eaten, were cut in slices like pudding. There was another consideration in the preservation
of camas. Camas were dug in prairies in September and October and again from March to April. Although
it was easy to dig camas from March to April, they did not keep well. Camas dug in September
and October could be kept for a long time. Fern roots were treated in much the same manner as camas.
They were rolled and dried across two or more poles in the house. The Indians dried other roots by laying
them on the ground and exposing them to the rays of the sun.
[p. 54] The Organization of Labor. The economic units of production were the nuclear family and the
group of families who lived under the same roof. These families were mostly of brothers, but sometimes
distant relations or family friends lived together. The nuclear family unit and the group of families who
live together carried on the important food collecting, food preservation and consumption activities…
people from a village generally went together to dig camas and other roots. Each household erected
a temporary hut where they stayed until they had secured the items that they wanted. The work was
done on a family basis. Women dug the roots and the men sometimes helped them if the ground were
hard. Women washed the roots and put them in baskets. Men hunted elk and deer on the prairies, and
the women smoked the meat. Men peeled the bark off cedars; women dried it and kept it for spare time
work in winter when dresses and other objects were made from it. Men made rope out of it….Members
of extended families rarely participated in productive activities.
[p. 55] The collection of vegetables, berries and herbs was the work of women. Men accompanied them if
the supply were distant and if there were danger from timber wolves. Women from several families went
148

together to one place. (If they went by canoe to collect shellfish, the men took them because it was too
dangerous for women to handle canoes.) Men did little work while the women were picking berries or
sprouts. They watched what the women were doing or tried to hunt. They occasionally helped women
pick berries or collect sprouts. [p. 56] People from different families hunted elk under the leadership of a
hunter, and the kill was divided among the participating groups/hunters.
[p. 57] Labor may be classified into specialized, ceremonial and common labor. Fishing, picking berries
and digging roots could be done by everyone. Specialized labor like canoe-making, elk-hunting, shamanism
was carried on by a few who claimed the spirit power to engage in such tasks. Ceremonial labor was
done only by those who were so entitled by exceptional spirit help or by hereditary entitlement….Upriver
people among the Quileute were expert in all types of hunting….Most elk hunters with elk hunting
power lived in upriver communities.
[p. 58] Labor was also organized along lines of sex, age and status. Women prepared food, hides and
furs; they wove mats and baskets, gathered and stored food, collected roots, picked berries and herbs and
firewood, and carried burdens. Men rarely did women’s work. If they did and were caught at it, they
became a laughing stock. Men worked nettle fibers into nets, Women performed every activity in weaving
baskets and mats, from obtaining the raw materials to making the basket or mat. Men made rope of
spruce roots, withes, cedar bark or whale sinew. A few activities such as digging roots were performed
jointly…During each season, a person had many choices of work. He could select fishing, hunting berry
picking, root digging, preservation activities, foraging for manufacturing materials, etc. His decision
depended upon (1) what was available or in season, (2) comparative yields, (3) his special ritual power,
and (4) the needs of his family…. Myths and stories indicate that skill rather than hard work warranted
pride. But the reputation of being a hard worker was useful….Because of abundant resources the tribes
had much leisure time beyond economic activities. They did not have to work the year round, and their
productive activities did not exhaust their waking hours. There was no great difference between rich,
poor and slave in food and living standards.
[p. 61] Capital. Capital is conceived here as a factor of production. It has value and may yield income to
its owner or users. Capital includes equipment, tools, and other agencies of production. Through the use
of capital, the Indians were able to produce commodities…Another form of capital included knowledge
of tools and natural resources and potencies conferred by spirits. [p. 63] Capital was owned by the individual,
family, or village. Ownership depended upon the nature of the capital goods. Weirs…canoes…
Helpers were given shares of the product. He never employed a person for wages….Slaves and dogs
were inherited, not killed. Sons received all the slaves and daughters inherited wool-producing dogs.
[p. 64] Seasonal Economic Activities. Intensive economic activity followed periods of relaxation and
149

social activities. The year was divided in eight or more phases or months named according to food supplied
such as “salmon-berry days.” [p. 70] Spring: many varieties of roots were collected in the prairies,
principally by Quileute and Quinault. Roots were boiled, dried and stored for the winter. Cedar bark
was peeled off for baskets, mats, raiment, etc. On such expeditions Indians lived in temporary shelters of
hemlock bark or mats. Bark for such abodes was cut on the spot, but sometimes the Indians carried mats
woven of cedarbark. [p. 71] Summer: Some people traded or bartered. Mountain and valley elk were fat
in July and August and Indians hunted them in the mountains. Hunters built brush shelters at convenient
places for a few nights only. Often they carried along skins for shelter roofs if they had many left
from previously hunted elk or deer.
Late in summer (August) storage activities started again. Women went out for berries and sometimes
stayed away for several days. The berries were put into large baskets and some of these containers were
sunk in the cold spring bed, which kept the berries fresh for a long time. The Indians ate such preserved
berries when there were no fresh berries in winter. [p. 71] Fall. At the end of summer, the Indians were
anxiously looking forward to fall fish….The Indians were as interested in a variety as in an abundance
of food. For instance when they were producing fish substantially but estimated that they had more
than enough for consumption, they went berry picking although it might not be equally productive. As
one Quileute informant told me, “The Indians did not want all fish or all whale, but liked to get some of
everything which they wanted to eat. An Indian did not care if he could catch more fish than he could
dig camas.” Choice in production gave the Indians a freedom unknown to most hunting tribes the world
over. [p. 74] An equilibrium had been established between production and social requirements. Indians
had never heard of “full production.” They did not need it. They wanted enough to eat, of course, but
they never thought in terms of maximum utilization of natural resources. Competition played a part in
production. Boasting about ability was a cultural feature. Quantity and efficiency of production were
both well regarded.
[p. 76] Exchange. Exchange is simply customs and institutions which transfer ownership of goods and
services from one individual to another. Potlatches…baskets of camas were a common gift at potlatches.
Trade…intertribal exchange of surpluses. Quileute exchanged (material form the prairies: camas and
other roots, elk meat and fat, elk and deer hides, cedarbark and articles thereof, and bear grass.
[p. 89] Consumption. Consumption in its broadest sense means the destruction of commodities through
various activities including eating, using and trading away goods as needs are satisfied…taboos…rituals…secret
societies and initiations, feasts, potlatches…
[p. 110] Property. The study of the mode of control of things, land or customary property relationships
and wealth. The winter household as the most clearly distinguishable large unit. The winter house was
150

capable of holding four or more families. The hunting and fishing grounds were owned by the family or
by the household. [p. 112] There were some other kinds of property which were owned by the individual
family. The prairies were such examples. The private ownership of prairies was based on the principle
that a person owned whatever he had made or improved by means of labor. Each family had a part of
a prairie where its members could go to dig roots. The prairies were burnt and weeds were kept under
control by means of fire. All of these acts involved labor. Hunting grounds (except in the prairies) usually
consisted of the watershed of the streams of valleys well-enclosed by hills or high mountains. The
Indians knew that nobody owned the land, but it was their property in the sense that they had knowledge
about it.
Hazel Bright [1969] The last Quileute monolingual speaker, Hazel spoke very little English. She was in
her 90s in 1969. Speaking of when she was a small girl through her daughter, who interpreted.
When I was a girl (1870s & ‘80s), we used to spend a lot of time in the prairies. Then, it stopped all of a
sudden.
William (Big Bill) Penn [1971] Big Bill Penn was born in 1888. He was called “Big Bill” to distinguish him
from his bother, William E. Penn, Little Bill. He was for many years the last member of the Sibaxwolayo,
Quileute whalers’ secret society called the “oily voiced song”; and claimed to be the last person alive that
had been part of a successful traditional whaling crew.
(Description paraphrased from oral description by Penn, p.519, J. Powell Quileute Notebook #4, 1970;
taken down as part of the discussion of Quileute placenames that served as the basis for Placenames of
the Quileute Indians by J.V. Powell, William Penn and others, Pacific Northwest Quarterly, Vol. 63:3, pp.
105-112.)
When Bill was young (c1895?), he remembers his family spent time during the summer (hot berry time,
August?) camped up on Forks Prairie, qit’layaqwoqw. There were whiteman houses up in the prairie already
and a number of Quileute families lived up there in old t’icik’als (smokehouses) along the Qalo’wa
and Boq’wac’hi’l Rivers. They camped, fixed up a bark hut shelter that they had used before (Loq’wati).
They lived off the land: elk, deer, buried bread (a ground bracken root paste loaf wrapped in skunk cabbage
leavs put in the ashes under live coals), berries. There was a drying rack for meat, big one. (Bill)
Thought they were going to burn the prairie because his father talked about it a lot and he was excited
and a little scared about a big fire, but there was no fire. They didn’t burn it that year. The whitemen
didn’t like them setting fires in the prairies. Later he saw them burning part of Sat’ayaqw (Quileute Prairie),
but they only burned a small area, burned when the grass was damp and it didn’t make a big fire.
151

Everybody worked hard. Must’ve been there for two weeks.
Big Bill remembers lots of the names and stories about his ancestors because they talked about the old
people when he was young. The old people put aside food for the ancestors and would burn it, especially
up in the prairies because that would keep the ghosts up there making things go right. Food that you
burned for the dead was multiplied and kept the ghosts eating well (J. Powell, NB. 1978, #1, p. 61).
Harold (Hal, Hallie B.) George [1978, notes in various Quileute notebooks, esp. J.Powell Quileute Note-
book 1978:#1] – Quileute & Makah born Aug 15, 1894, along the Fraser River in B.C., although his parents
were Makah and Quileute. “Hal was born up on the Fraser River. They used to go there fishing every
year, certain time of the year—the Makahs and from LaPush. There’s an Indian village there and that’s
where they went. There weren’t any doctors and she (Hal’s mother) bled to death. It was her first baby.
So that’s why Hal’s aunt and grandmother (Quileute extended kinship categories) raised him. Sally
Payne Oby (usually Obi, 1st husband, Yashik Oby) Brown (2nd husband, Tommy Brown) had no children
and raised Hal along with Mrs. Old Man Gray, who also had no children [Verne Ray, random notes
c 1954]. Hal met Frachtenberg at Chemawa School and served, while a youth, as ethnographic informant,
later working with numerous other anthropologists, as well, and finally Jay Powell in 1978. Powell’s
notes on Hal are written in NB 1978.1 and on facing pages of a xerox copy of Frachtenberg’s Quil. fIeldnotes
which George and Powell reviewed and annotated liberally in 1978-9.
I heard (that around 1890) women used to be put to work for quarreling by the police, e.g. putting in the
road from LaPush to Mora, so many days punching the road for an offense. In those days there was no
Thunder Road trail, it was swampy back there and to get to Mora you took a canoe from the basin. Men
were put to work ringing the trees, the village area was still overgrown [note in Fr. NB 1.3].
A trail led from old Mora to Sat’ayaqw and as far as “little Prairie.” It was burned every fall to encour-
age further growth. Mark Willliams was trying to burn the prairie (hokwalillowot, “burning the prairie)
and get matches from a Whiteman. Kwadis was a black bulb, peeled and cooked by steaming and eaten.
Kwala, “camas,” and t’obiya, “strawberry” were picked in the prairies. Katil (“medicine”) crabapple bark
was used for a spring tonic mixed with licorice from the alder and bearberry bark. q’aq’wa’, a type of
fern roots (p.44).
They think that it was easy, but we had to work hard. Sure, the talaykila pots’oqw (old people) just gath-
ered what the great nature provided. They’d say, “T’siq’ati, t’siq’ati, t’siq’ati” (It’s the nature spirit, nature
spirit, nature spirit) when they were picking or eating food. But, we needed lots of food to get through
the winter and sometimes even more because winter was the time when there were potlatches and meant
152

we’d have to have enough put up to feed hayoqwqwa (guests) for days, a week (NB 1978. 1, p. 68).
Women stopped digging roots and much else in terms of aboriginal economic patterns when the use of
fish traps was declared illegal. This forced the people to move to LaPush for a living or take jobs working
for the whiteman, which allowed purchase of groceries rather than digging. In Hal’s youth, the women
still used a digging stick (k’woyo’), but had made it out of a steel bar (p. 70).
Now, the old people said bitsatsqal yix t’siq’ati (the land takes care of itself) and that means everything.
They didn’t plant gardens or build fences to keep deer out. They didn’t make la’wqwol or lotlqwli
(roads/trails or bridges), never chopped down trees to make bridges over the rivers (p. 71).
Royal Pullen [Feb. 1980, an interview transcribed by Heather Hennum in 2002] – Royal Pullen was the
son of Dan Pullen and Harriet Smith Pullen. Harriet was the oldest daughter of A.J. Smith (the brother
of A.W. Smith, first schoolmaster at LaPush, starting in c1883). A.J. Smith moved to Neah Bay from
New Brunswick, following their son A.W. Harriet, their oldest daughter married Dan Pullen (trader at
LaPush), and stayed there until the fire of 1889 (which various historical sources concur was set arson
started by Dan Pullen in order to support his homestead claim that the area at the mouth of the Quillayute
River was no longer an inhabited Indian village). Harriet moved to Skagway at the time of the
Klondike gold rush and built Pullen House, a famous hostelry, the fireplace of which is still standing with
PULLEN visible in inset pebbles…Harriet’s grave is 100 yard away along the White Pass RR tracks. Dan
Pullen moved to Port Townsend and Royal and his two brothers, Chester and David, shuffled back and
forth between the parents and finally set out on his own, ending up in rest home in California.
Female Voice: [p. 2] When your father came in, did he help them learn to farm a bit?
Royal Pullen: Oh, yes. Well he didn’t teach them to farm. They never farmed. The Indians wouldn’t
farm. But my father would plant a crop. He went up to the Little Prairie and he plowed it all up and
planted it with potatoes. See potatoes were their big food. And the Indians would come up and harvest
it. And he would give them Indians half the crop for picking them and sacking them and bringing them
down to LaPush. See, they would take the boats up the river to Balch’s place. I don’t know what they
call it now. They call it something else. But Balch used to have a store up there and that was the landing
place…
FV: You told me once about going to visit your mother’s family, the Smiths, at the Little Prairie and coming
home sometimes at night and it was kind of scary?
RP: Oh, that was the Big Prairie. The Smiths were all in the Big Prairie. And my father and Mark owned
the Little Prairie. And we ran cattle on it all the time…And hay and oats. We grew an awful lot of oats.
In that country the fern is awful bad…It’s kind of a bush fern. And he plowed it all up and he kept plow-
153

ing it up until he got it killed and then he put [p. 3] in pasture and oats and hay. We had a big hay barn
over there. But the potato was the thing that intrigued me. He would plant the potatoes and the Indians…and
they would plow up the potatoes when they were ripe. And then the Indians had to sack them
and carry them down to the wagons and load them in . And then he would take them down to Balch’s
place and load them onto canoes. The Indians did all of that…
FV: [p. 5] You were telling about the Indians keeping the Little Prairie, a prairie, by burning it.
RP: Yes, they used to burn both prairies so they could get the little bulbs at the bottom like onions. They
would come up after the burn you see and burning (sic). But the principle reason they burned them was
to get the rabbits and things that lived around in this tall grass. They would drive them out…[p. 6] They
would drive them out and then they would get them. Catch them. And that would give them a lot of
meat all the time. Easy meat. They didn’t have the money for that.
FV: And I expect there wasn’t a great danger for a forest fire because the trees were up. There wasn’t any
brush because the trees were up.
RP: No, no brush under there to speak of. Even if they did have a forest fire that didn’t mean anything to
the Indians.
FV. Well, I know but it might have burned down their houses and so forth if it got out of hand over there
I would think.
RP: Well, there were no houses there. There was nothing here…See the Little Prairie and the Big Prairie;
there wasn’t anything there. And then of course when the whites came they cleared off the area and there
wasn’t any danger of burning then. But they quit that after the whites came you see because the whites
settle then you see. Just as soon as the government laid out the land and sold it, well then the whites
took over you see. And of course the Indians were more or less nomads. They didn’t go anywhere. They
didn’t care. But father got them to settle around there for trading purposes you see And he would buy
their seals and they would buy clothing and things like that from father. So he did a pretty good business.
He made pretty good money.
Sarah Ward Woodruff Hines [1980, Jay Powell Notebook 1978-82, p. 75] – Sarah was a Quileute born 1906,
married to Fred “Old Man Woody” Woodruff, daughter of Sixtis & Mary Ward, traditional owners of
Dixwodachtada (Dickey River).
[Source: J. Powell fieldnotes, (June 1980) Notebook 1978 - #1, p. 75]
One time, I remember, a bunch of us went up to Sa’tayaqw , Quillayute Prairie. At the top of
Thunder Road. The kids got ferried across the (Quillayute) River to Mora in the morning by J.E.L. James
(or James Rudolph, only some kids went over there to school), but we went from the village in a canoe.
You could walk up to the prairie in about 45 minutes. There was a road when I (she) was a girl. We went
up there, my mother (Mary Ward) and sister (Effie, later Gray) and a bunch of ladies, girls. A few had
154

axuwis (pack baskets) and hak’waqstil (forehead tumplines), gunny sacks. Maybe 12 of us. Walked fast.
I sometimes run to keep up.
There were already old farms in sat’ayaqw (Quil Prairie) and on the way up there. They had
plowed up some of the prairie and fenced some of it. We weren’t allowed to burn it anymore. The old
ladies told stories about it, old days. People still came there a lot. Even walked to Forks along the path
in dry weather, so the River was low to cross Cullitt’s ford across the Sol Duc (la’watkwal latol) to get
to qet’layaqwoqw (Forks Prairie) but we usually got a ride. Never saw them burn the prairie. Old man
Sixtis said they burned them on dry days when it was going to rain. They could tell when it was going to
rain. I never heard of a fire getting out of control, burning the woods. None of the prairies had burned
trees around the edge back then. The old man told how prairies were formed by whales flopping around
to get away from Tist’ilal (Thunderbird).
We got there early 6:30, 7:00. Aubrey and Henry Taylor took us over in a big canoe to above K’i’il
(Rialto Beach). Worked, too. We were all barefoot except Ida Taylor, who carried her shoes. Some had
digging sticks. Mary had a bunch of K’wuyokws in her baxwuy that weren’t sticks, they were cut off elk
horn tips. It was easy to dig if you stuck it down in the right place. We mostly dug t’sikwi’ (bracken and
sword fern roots) and La’it’ay (clover roots). Effie (sister, Eli Ward’s wife) couldn’t dig t’sikwi’ because
she was pregnant. Everybody laughed. I don’t think they really believed it would hurt the baby. But
they thought t’siq’ati didn’t like it, so she just went and dug more la’it’ay. The baskets got real heavy. We
left them and went to K’wadiyaqw (Little Quil Pr.) and dug camas for 3 hours. We went home about 3:00.
Got a ride in the gas boat at Mora. Mary had a baxwuy and a gunny sack (that she was) carrying. No
lunch.
This was in summer, I guess. In springtime you could sometimes get camas easier when they plowed up
there, plowed new places.. No digging. Just pick it up when they plow. In summer the kwala is bigger
and tougher. Lacamas them old men said. Sunny and hot.
[source: transcribed interview identified only as “by Dori,” March 9, 1984, in Quileute tribal archives.
Pp3-4.]
….My aunt used to take a tent out there and camp for two or three days and just dig. Just dig all day
those little bulbs. It takes a long time. She’d come back with a whole bunch and tell everybody to come
and eat in the big lodge, everybody. She was a great one for that.”
Jackson, Johnny. (Johnny Jackson was a Quileute, born of a Quileute woman who married a Nuuchahnulth
(Nootka) man from Port Alberni. John was raised in Port Alberni, where he is remembered by elders
as XXX. His mother died there, and John moved back to LaPush in his teens. [source: transcribed inter-
155

view identified only as “by Dori,” March 9, 1984, in Quileute tribal archives. p.1]
…..they camp overnight, them old ladies, three or four of them old ladies used to camp over there and get
some of this. Lacamas. Then everybody had big eats when they come home, invite everybody…Yeah,
and I know they used to have some kind of seal oil, too, they dig, you know, when they eat it, some of
them use it, they use that seal oil for it…and us, we used to dip it in the sugar. We used sugar to make it
sweet…I bet it’d be good with syrup. Dip it in the syrup…
Wahlgren, Iva Hosack [n.d.] “Memories of a Quillayute and Sol Duc Country Pioneer,” unpub. interview
notes prepared by the Forks Logging Museum staff.
Iva tells of moving to the old log cabin on the west end of the Quillayute Prairie (probably in the 1870s),
and of the Indian women gathering camas there when she was young; she also mentions cow parsnips
and horsetail (scouring rush) and the way they were prepared by Quileute in traditional cookery.
This was the homestead cabin of John Hagadorn on the west end of Quillayute Prairie. The walls had
so much ivy growing on them they couldn’t fall down. There was no window or door and no floor. I
don’t know if it ever had a floor in it or not. There were several bushy trees close by and several vines of
little white roses, which I call the Old Homestead rose, and a row of gooseberry bushes….
We used to enjoy watching the Indian women gather camas bulbs in the spring. When the farmers
plowed, there would be five or six women follow behind picking up and digging out the camas bulbs,
which are not much bigger than onion sets. The soil on Quillayute Prairie is black loam and the little
white bulbs were easy to see.
They worked all day and would get, I would guess, twelve or fifteen pounds apiece. Then they had to
walk back to Mora and from there they took their canoe down the Quillayute River to LaPush.
The Camas blooms in May and June around here and have from 10 to 30 flowers on a stem like a hyacinth.
They open from the bottom and only have four or five open flowers at one time. Most of them are
blue, but you may find a white one once in awhile. They like damp ground but flourish on the prairie in
the West End. They are also thick in the peat moss bogs between Forks and the Hoh River. In the earlier
days the Indians used the camas in place of bread. They dug a little pit and lined it with flat stone(s) and
made a fire in it. When the stones were red hot, they took the fire out, then lined the hole with a special
kind of grass they gathered in the mountains. Then, they put in the camas bulbs and put more grass over
the bulbs. Then they covered it up tight with hot sand and built a fire on top. They had to keep the fire
going steady for about 36 hours. They couldn’t open the pit before the bulbs were done or they would
be spoiled. I suppose they would go flat like a dumpling goes when you take the lid off before they are
156

done.
They also boiled the camas with a few fish eggs or whale oil. In later years when the Indians had
sugar, they cooked them like pudding and put sugar and cream on. The camas bulb must have a thickening
substance in it, as it is also called sago.
Another food we watched the Indians gather was the cow parsnips or Heracleum canatum and the
horsetail blossom. Mrs. Tommy Payne showed me how they ate the cow parsnips. She gathered the
new blossom stalks before they bloomed. Then she stripped the skin off, which comes off like the skin
of rhubarb, and started eating on one end like a stick of celery. I didn’t like the flavor. The blossom of
the horsetail is light yellow and brown, about six or seven inches high when they gather it. It is cooked
like asparagus and the herb books say it is high in Vitamin A. It is a shame that civilization has made the
Indians feel embarrassed to be caught gathering some of these wild foods. I have seen some stop along
the highway and run to the bank and grab a couple of handfuls and then run for their car before anyone
caught them…..
Powell’s Bibliography:
Daugherty, Richard D. (1948-9) Notebooks #1-4; unpublished ms notes on the Quileute and Hoh, taken at
Lower Hoh River.
Farrand, Livingston. (1919) “Quileute Tales,” Vol 32. Journal of American Folklore, p.251-79.
Frachtenberg, Leo (1916) Unpublished ms notebooks on the Quileute in the American Philosophical
Library, Philadelphia.
Gunther, Erna (1973) Ethnobotany of Western Washington (Rev. Ed. with Appendix by J.V. Powell and
Fred Woodruff) UWPress: Seattle).
Pettitt, George A. (1955) The Quileute of LaPush: 1775-1945. Vol 14:1 Anthropological records.
Powell, Jay V. (1969-present). Quileute ethnographic and linguistic notes, taken in LaPush.
_____ (1997), “Don’t Waste the Environment” QTS Cultural Enrichment Big Book.
_____ and Fred Woodruff (1976) “Quileute Dictionary.” Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol
10:1.
_____ and Dell Hymes (1993) “Don’t Waste the Environment – An Interpretive Re-consideration of a
Quileute Discourse on the Natural World,” unpub paper given at 25th ICSL, Vancouver.
_____ and Lillian Pullen (1989) “Conversations with Nature” QTS Cultural Enrichment Big Book.
Pullen, Royal (1980) an unpub. interview transcribed by Heather Hennum in 2002.
Ray, Verne F. (c1954). Quileute Ms Notes (random notes in author’s archival files made while preparing
the Quileute case for the Indian Court of Claims; reviewed by Powell in 1988) c1954.
Reagan, Albert B.(1935) “Some Myths of the Hoh and Quillayute Indians,” Transactions of the Kansas
157

Academy of Sciences.
_____ and L.V.W. Walters (1933). “Tales from the Hoh and Quileute.” Journal of American folk-lore, Vol.
46, No. 182, October-December, 1933.
Singh, Ram Raj Prasad (1966) Aboriginal Economic System of the Olympic Peninsula Indians, Western
Washington. Sacramento Anthr. Soc: Sacramento.
Swan, James G. (1861). A cruise in the Sarah Newton (July 18-August 24, 1861), Washington Standard, 5
& 12 October, 1861. Reprinted in Almost out of the World, William A Katz, ed., Wash. St. Hist. Soc. [1971].
_____ (1879). Documents and notes from a meeting held August 20-1, 1879, in the village at the mouth
of the Quillayute River between Chas. Willoughby (U.S. Indian Agent), James G. Swan (interpreter and
clerk) and the chiefs and sub-chiefs of the Quileute.
Wahlgren, Iva Hosack (n.d.) “Memories of a Quillayute and Sol Duc Country Pioneer,” unpub. interview
notes prepared by the Forks Logging Museum staff.
158